i have another input to IPv6 addressing architecture, which is
very securty-sensitive. please review and integrate it before
publishing the next one.
draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
itojun
---
4. Suggested protocol change
o In IPv4 address
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 4. Suggested protocol change
>
> o In IPv4 address architecture document [Hinden, 1998] explicitly state
> that IPv4 mapped address is for use within basic API [Gilligan, 1999]
> , and basic API only. Forbid any other uses.
You may recall some
In your previous mail you wrote:
4. Suggested protocol change
o In IPv4 address architecture document [Hinden, 1998] explicitly state
that IPv4 mapped address is for use within basic API [Gilligan, 1999]
, and basic API only. Forbid any other uses.
=> I don't like at al
Hi Itojun,
>o In IPv4 address architecture document [Hinden, 1998] explicitly state
> that IPv4 mapped address is for use within basic API [Gilligan, 1999]
> , and basic API only. Forbid any other uses.
I don't have a problem with this concept. In fact, I thought that we
had two ways to i
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >o In IPv4 address architecture document [Hinden, 1998] explicitly state
> > that IPv4 mapped address is for use within basic API [Gilligan, 1999]
> > , and basic API only. Forbid any other uses.
>
> I don't have a problem with this concept.
>> >o Move any document that suggests the use of IPv4 mapped address on wire
>> > to historic, due to security reasons.
>> Which documents would this include? SIIT?
>Only non-algorithmic portions of SIIT. (Or else NAT-PT should have to be
>rewritten to be independent).
>> Any others?
>The -0
>> o Move any document that suggests the use of IPv4 mapped address on wire
>> to historic, due to security reasons.
>=> you are a bit hard: these mechanisms should simply use other
>injections of the IPv4 address space into the IPv6 address space
>(there are many ways to inject a 2^32 space
In your previous mail you wrote:
>> Another way is to deprecate RFC2553 section 3.7, however, due to the
>> wide deployment of applications that use IPv6 basic API, the option is
>> not feasible.
>=> I strongly object to this part of your proposal. IMHO IPv6 is NOT
>a new pr
> 4. Suggested protocol change
>
> o In IPv4 address architecture document [Hinden, 1998] explicitly state
> that IPv4 mapped address is for use within basic API [Gilligan, 1999]
> , and basic API only. Forbid any other uses.
>
> o Move any document that suggests the use of IPv4 mapped add
