Le 2013-04-24 17:09, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 04:56:33 PM Simon Perreault wrote: My initial thought is you should have put that in an "ip4" mechanism. Other way around (which is the concern that caused the text to be added) if the IPv4-mapped addresses are treated as IPv6 addresses, then senders who only used IPv4 might have to dual publish any IPv4 addresses in both "ip4" and "ip6" mechanisms. That's bad in many ways.
I guess I just don't understand where those IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses that the SPF process needs to check are coming from. An example would be very helpful.
The goal was to try and cover this case in a way that it was clear that this was the reciever's problem to sort out and the sender didn't have to double publish, just in case (I've seen people do this).
Yeah, this is bad. Variants arise in many situations. Usually it is solved by treating IPv6 addresses as opaque and not giving any special meaning to the IPv4-mapped prefix.
Simon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
