> From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
> While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems
> fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead of
> translating it properly or telling the source-system: "oops, something
> bad happened" is unacceptable (in my mind).
Ow; now you're making my head hurt.
I don't think LISP was ever intended to work in the circumstance where an
IPv[46] xTR was talking directly to an IPv[64] (i.e. the opposite of the
other one) xTR, via a IPv[4-6] translator box - just like we don't expect
IPv4 routers to talk to IPv6 routers through an IPv[4-6] translator box.
So I'm not sure we need to worry about that case either? Or do we need that
case to work? Are there really going to be operational cases _during the term
of the LISP experimental phase_ with IPv4-only xTRs needing to talk to
IPv6-only xTRs?
(That is of course separate from the case where a IPv6-only xTR wants to talk
to another IPv6-only xTR, and there is no direct v6-native path between them -
it was at that point that my head started to hurt....)
Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
