In your previous mail you wrote:
Please review and comment.
=> I support the proposal.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman
Iljitsch,
At 01:22 AM 03/23/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22-mrt-05, at 19:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
I like the idea of putting each type of address in a separate section,
but not so about adding a separate section for the deprecation. As a
compromise, how about if I add the separate section
On 22-mrt-05, at 19:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
I like the idea of putting each type of address in a separate section,
but not so about adding a separate section for the deprecation. As a
compromise, how about if I add the separate section for each type and
then put the deprecation text in the sectio
Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 2005-03-17, at 15.02, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > > Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do
> > >> with
> > >>
Iljitsch,
I submit that as someone who has English as a first language (right?) and
who has been doing this for a long time, your perception of a clear
standards text isn't the same as someone who is still strugling with the
language and is new to all of this.
Unless others think this is import
Kurtis,
> I don't think it is necessary as there wasn't any special handling
> defined in this document for these addresses. Their handling falls
> under the default rules for global unicast.
So If I am an application that receives a packet with a deprecated
IPv4-compatible address, I should just
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-03-17, at 15.02, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
> > Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do
> >> with
> >> these addresses when found?
> >
> > We're already allowing f
> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sure. But I am more worried of creating ambiguity with what
> applications does when receiving IPv4 compatible addresses as source
> addresses. If we are replying to them, we have the-facto not actually
> deprecated them :-)
There are many othe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-17, at 15.02, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do
>> with
>> these addresses when found?
>
> We're already allowing for multiple behav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-17, at 18.47, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Kurtis,
>
>> > New or updated implementations are not required to support this
>> > address type. Existing implementations and deployments may
>> continue
>> > to use these addresses.
>>
>> S
Bob,
On 22-mrt-05, at 1:43, Bob Hinden wrote:
Now it doesn't say that IPv4-mapped addresses are also deprecated,
but I'll promise you that a significant number of people are going to
think that they are because of apparent guilt by association. The
fact that the "IPv4-compatible" and "IPv4-mappe
Ipv4 compatible addresses also entered RFC3484
-default address selection. In this RFC a special label (3)
Is defined for them.
Will that text also be updated ?
Best regards
Peter
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ie
Iljitsch,
This part was never the problem. The problem is that immediately
afterwards, it says:
A second type of IPv6 address which holds an embedded IPv4 address is
also defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses
of IPv4 nodes as IPv6 addresses. This type of address
On 21-mrt-05, at 18:58, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think it's important to spell out that IPv4-mapped addresses aren't
being deprecated, along with a reference to where they're defined.
I am reluctant to have the text describing the IPv4 Mapped addresses
say they are "not deprecated" because I think it
Brian,
At 04:33 AM 03/21/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
So to my thinking it is listed as "Reserved by IETF" now and won't be
reused without the IETF giving some direction to the IANA. Do think we
need to do more than this?
That is OK for me, but I think it needs to be noted in the IANA
Con
Iljitsch,
At 03:53 AM 03/19/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I think it's important to spell out that IPv4-mapped addresses aren't
being deprecated, along with a reference to where they're defined.
I am reluctant to have the text describing the IPv4 Mapped addresses say
they are "not deprecated
Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
At 02:25 AM 03/18/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Eric asks a good question.
I think the chances that some implementers will choose to store
IPv4 addresses in IPv6-sized structures is 100%. So I am strongly
of the view that that the IPv4-compatible *format*, i.e. a ::/96
pre
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
Some might argue (and argued in the past) that there should be some health
warnings about the use of mapped addresses (e.g., a reference to
now-published RFC4038), but IMHO that kind of text may be ill fit to the
address architecture and is opening a can-of
On 16-mrt-05, at 20:46, Bob Hinden wrote:
2.5.5 IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses
[...]
A second type of IPv6 address which holds an embedded IPv4 address
is
also defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses
of IPv4 nodes as IPv6 addresses. This type of addres
Brian,
At 02:25 AM 03/18/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Eric asks a good question.
I think the chances that some implementers will choose to store
IPv4 addresses in IPv6-sized structures is 100%. So I am strongly
of the view that that the IPv4-compatible *format*, i.e. a ::/96
prefix, needs to be r
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:25:57AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Eric asks a good question.
>
> I think the chances that some implementers will choose to store IPv4
> addresses in IPv6-sized structures is 100%. So I am strongly of the
> view that that the IPv4-compatible *format*, i.e. a ::/96
L PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address"
Hi Bob,
Should there also be an upate to the IANA considerations section
asking IANA to list
Pekka,
While I would have liked to remove the mention of compatible addresses
completely, deprecation as proposed by Bob is good enough for me.
Thanks!
Some might argue (and argued in the past) that there should be some health
warnings about the use of mapped addresses (e.g., a reference to
now-
Kurtis,
> New or updated implementations are not required to support this
> address type. Existing implementations and deployments may continue
> to use these addresses.
Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do with
these addresses when found?
I don't think i
Margaret,
At 12:52 PM 03/16/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Bob,
Should there also be an upate to the IANA considerations section asking
IANA to list this allocation as deprecated?
Good question, I had not thought about that. What is currently listed on
the IANA pages for IPv6 address space (
Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > New or updated implementations are not required to support this
> > address type. Existing implementations and deployments may continue
> > to use these addresses.
>
> Shouldn't we be a bit
Bob,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> At last weeks IPv6 session in Minneapolis, the working group reached a
> consensus to deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". This email is
> to verify this consensus on the mailing list
Agree.
and to review the
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:58 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> Are RFC 2893 Para. 5.2 and 5.3 going to be updated accordingly?
>> Otherwise, I have no objection.
>
>RFC2893 is going to be obsoleted any day now, by
>draft-ietf-mech-v2-xx, so this is not a
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:24 -0800,
>>>>> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At last weeks IPv6 session in Minneapolis, the working group reached a
> consensus to deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". This email is
> to
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Are RFC 2893 Para. 5.2 and 5.3 going to be updated accordingly?
Otherwise, I have no objection.
RFC2893 is going to be obsoleted any day now, by
draft-ietf-mech-v2-xx, so this is not an issue.
While I would have liked to remove the mention of compat
March 16, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address"
Hi Bob,
Should there also be an upate to the IANA considerations section
asking IANA to list this allocation as deprecated?
Margaret
At 11:46 AM -0800 3/16/05, Bob Hinde
Hi Bob,
Should there also be an upate to the IANA considerations section
asking IANA to list this allocation as deprecated?
Margaret
At 11:46 AM -0800 3/16/05, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
At last weeks IPv6 session in Minneapolis, the working group reached
a consensus to deprecate the "
Are RFC 2893 Para. 5.2 and 5.3 going to be updated accordingly? Otherwise, I
have no objection.
Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:46 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Deprecate the "IPv4-com
Hi,
At last weeks IPv6 session in Minneapolis, the working group reached a
consensus to deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". This email is
to verify this consensus on the mailing list and to review the proposed
text to deprecate these address in the update to the IP
34 matches
Mail list logo
