Subject: RE: IPv6 addresses with embedded private IPv4 addresses

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:34:35 -0800

Brian Carpenter writes:
> 6to4 is meant to do more than imply it:
[...]
You're right.

> And BTW it isn't a draft; it's an RFC. I don't know if the 
> announcement is
> out, because I don't seem to be able to receive email this 
> morning, only
> send it, but the authors' 48 hour check on the RFC just finished.

I didn't get the announcement until after I sent the email.

> Personally I think the answer should be to insist on global addresses
> in IPv4-compatible addresses too. The scenarios using NAT 
> addresses here are too horrible to contemplate.

Sounds like emerging consensus...

If we all agree this is the right thing (and it's sounding so far 
like we do) then I'd like to ask that section 2.5.4 of 
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-*.txt be updated to explicitly state 
this restriction.

-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------