Yes. The MIF model seems to me to be fairly broken from an architectural point of view. Maybe you have to forbid exporting certain information from one stack to another on a MIF host.
Brian On 2011-03-28 20:19, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: > Multi-interfaced host might have one network interface IPv6-only with NAT64 > (e.g. cellular) and another network interface IPv4-only (e.g. WLAN). > > Teemu > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 28. maaliskuuta 2011 07:55 >> To: Teemu Kiviniemi >> Cc: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-MS/Tampere); beh...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix >> >> On 2011-03-28 08:53, Teemu Kiviniemi wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com wrote: >> ... >>> I believe native IPv4 should always be preferred over NAT64. >> That is just irrelevant and of no importance, since the only hosts >> that use DNS64 and NAT64 in normal life are IPv6-only hosts. >> >> There is a side issue of what happens if a synthetic IPv6 address >> is referred to a non-IPv6-only host, but that is a whole other >> problem that cannot be solved at the RFC3484bis level. >> >> See draft-carpenter-referral-ps-02.txt... >> >> Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
