Kurtis,
> I don't think it is necessary as there wasn't any special handling > defined in this document for these addresses. Their handling falls > under the default rules for global unicast.
So If I am an application that receives a packet with a deprecated IPv4-compatible address, I should just reply? Or do whatever the stack implementer have decided?
These should be treated like all other types of global unicast addresses. There was never any special handling defined for these addresses.
> Of course, this wasn't the case for site-local where there were > special handling rules defined that had to be changed (i.e., removed).
Sure. But I am more worried of creating ambiguity with what applications does when receiving IPv4 compatible addresses as source addresses. If we are replying to them, we have the-facto not actually deprecated them :-)
I don't think there is any ambiguity. Except for the addresses called out in Section
2.4 Address Type Identification, all addresses are to be treated as global unicast. An application would not know it has received an IPv4 compatible address. Again, very different from site-local where there was special handling defined.
The deprecation of IPv4 compatible addresses is to tell people to stop using them. I don't think it makes any sense to add any new rules or required actions to enforce this.
Also, if I remember correctly, our reason for deprecating IPv4 compatible address is because we aren't using them. So if we aren't using them, then it follows that the likelihood of receiving one is small. :-)
Bob
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQj/YkaarNKXTPFCVEQKrfACeMjKdDnOLucur2Pi9m014DvCZi6gAoKjA 4v+eT+DTYivHX7ugXv8ekofR =fknb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
