On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04) > describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The > draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 > Addresses. It uses a 4rd specific mark called the V octet in the first 8 > bits of the Interface Identifier. There were some concerns raised in > softwire about whether such addresses are actually compatible with the > IPv6 addressing architecture. Whether this is actually compatible with > the IPv6 addressing architecture is outside the scope of the softwire > wg. Hence we would like to hear the 6man wg's perspective on this. I > would like to request the wg to please go over the NOTE in Section 4.5 > page 18, which explains the issue, and over IANA Considerations Section > 6, and chime in on whether this is acceptable from a 6man perspective.
Beside all the other concern being rised that question this draft I have a hard time finding any reason for why we need yet another mapping system. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
