IPv4 - IPv6 translation

2000-06-21 Thread Yuval Shaul
Does anybody know of anything (RFC, implementation, idea etc)about converting IPv4 packets to IPv6 packets ? This could be usefull for older stations (most currently working windows) that would like to connect to IPv6 only servers. (Do such servers exist ?) Yuval ___

RE: problems with privacy draft

2000-06-21 Thread Richard Draves
> I believe you can make your set of rules simpler if you introduce > a new lifetime (or condition if one needs something smarter than > a delay). I'll call it "regen lifetime" and when the regen lifetime > of an anonymous address expires then a new address is created, checked > by DAD then is use

RE: rfc2553bis comments

2000-06-21 Thread Richard Draves
>3) When multicast addresses are stored in a sockaddr_in6, > how is the >scope id field Interpreted? > > => I believe it should be an interface index because it is the way > it works today (or before scope id introduction if you prefer :-): > IPV6_MULTICAST_IF & IPV6_JOIN_GROUP deal with

RE: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Tim Hartrick
Rich, > > My assumption was that recvfrom() and accept() should return sin6_flowinfo > from the received packet, and connect() and sendto() should take > sin6_flowinfo and put it into sent packets. > > For bind(), I'd say either error if sin6_flowinfo is non-zero, or ignore > sin6_flowinfo.

RE: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Richard Draves
My assumption was that recvfrom() and accept() should return sin6_flowinfo from the received packet, and connect() and sendto() should take sin6_flowinfo and put it into sent packets. For bind(), I'd say either error if sin6_flowinfo is non-zero, or ignore sin6_flowinfo. Rich > -Original Me

Re: ICMP and unknown extension headers?

2000-06-21 Thread Markku Savela
> > outbound: apply policy and IPSEC to the error packed based on the > > header of the received packet (except the src/dst swapped as if the > > packet were going out) > > > inbound: the policy check on ICMP error packets is based on the > > contained header (not the outer ICMP). Thus

Re: ICMP and unknown extension headers?

2000-06-21 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
>> > unrecognized value was found after decompressing a packet, the returned >> ^you mean decrypting? >> > packet is the decompressed packet (if the security rules allow it to be >> > sent at all). >I did mean decompressing. I thought someone broug

Re: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
>> >The conclusion: sin6_flowinfo mbz in recvfrom(), and may contain >> >only class bits in sendto(). It is much more convenient to make with >> >setsockopt() or ancillary data. >My take it also that accept() should behave the same as recvfrom, >since a native application might take the address r

Re: ICMP and unknown extension headers?

2000-06-21 Thread Steve Deering
At 8:34 AM +0900 6/21/00, JINMEI Tatuya wrote: > > Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > If the > > unrecognized value was found after decompressing a packet, the returned > ^you mean decrypting? > > packet is the decompressed packet (if th

Re: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
hello, >> (6) what is the endian of sin6_flowinfo? >> I guess it is network byte order, since it appears on the wire. >Doesn't the basic API say that everything is in network byte order? >There used to be some macros to take apart the flowinfo into a tclass >and a flowla

Re: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Erik Nordmark
> >The conclusion: sin6_flowinfo mbz in recvfrom(), and may contain > >only class bits in sendto(). It is much more convenient to make with > >setsockopt() or ancillary data. My take it also that accept() should behave the same as recvfrom, since a native application might take the address retur

Re: sin6_flowinfo and sendto/recvfrom

2000-06-21 Thread Erik Nordmark
> more questions (I could not find answer from my archive): > (4) what happens if we connect(2) with sin6_flowinfo filled? > my guess is that sin6_flowinfo sticks into pcb, and > will be attached to every packet we will send. My assumption is the same as y

Re: ICMP and unknown extension headers?

2000-06-21 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:03:09 -0700, > Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Thus, if the unrecognized value is in a header following a Fragment header, > then the returned packet is the reassembled packet (or as much of the > reassembled packet as will fit, if the whole packet does

Re: ICMP and unknown extension headers?

2000-06-21 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:21:13 +0300 (EET DST), > Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > This is what I have been thinking that would make sense. At least in > IPv6 ICMP, the error messages are clearly distingquished. So I have > been wondering if it would be a good rule as follows: