I don't know much serious migration to IPv6 has started yet, but I did think this embedding IPv4 addresses inside IPv6 addresses could be a useful technique, possibly. Don't know if it will end up being useful, with 20/20 hindsight. At first blush, it seems to be a way of avoiding static configuration when creating tunnels.
Is there anything in particular, other than "complexity," that motivated the motion to dismiss? Thanks. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 7:49 AM > To: IPv6 WG > Subject: IPv6 Address Architecture update question > > > Hi, > > I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. > In doing this > I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One > comment made > was to remove Section 2.5.5 "IPv6 Addresses with Embedded > IPv4 Addresses" > from the document. This would include removing the special > case in the > textual representation (section 2.2, 3.). > > I would like to solicit the working group's thoughts on this. > I don't have > a strong opinion one way or another. It's not clear it has > ever been that > useful and add a certain degree of complexity. On the other hand, it > appears in several places in the document and requires some careful > editing :-) > > Since I expect this is widely implemented, please be sure to > report any > problem that might occur if this is to be removed from the > specification. This includes would it break other documents > that refer to > the IPv6 address architecture specification. > > The plan is to submit the updated draft for Draft Standard. > In general > removing things that are not found to be useful is OK when > going to Draft > standard. > > Thanks, > Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
