Subject: get rid of IPv4 compatibles?

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:47:33 +0100

Thursday is the last chance to phase out IPv4 compatible addresses
and automatic tunnels. I propose to add this point to the discussion
about RFC 2373 revision.

[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Antonio Querubin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:21:41 -1000 (HST)

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:47:33 +0100
> From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: get rid of IPv4 compatibles?
>

???  Is the RFC-2373 revision still under discussion?

If it is how about just defining mapped multicast addresses already?
Similar to section 2.5.5 here's a new section 2.7.2 :)

2.7.2  IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Multicast Group Addresses

   Another type of IPv4-mapped IPv6 address which holds an embedded IPv4
   multicast address is defined.  This address type is used to represent
   the addresses of IPv4 multicast groups as IPv6 addresses.  This
   type of address has the format:

   |                80 bits               | 16 |      32 bits        |
   +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
   |0000..............................0000|FFFF|IPv4 multicast group |
   +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:00:25 +0100 (CET)

> and automatic tunnels. I propose to add this point to the discussion

The plan in ngtrans has been to remove this by creating RFC1933ter = RFC2893bis
without these pieces.

I don't have a problem removing compatible addresses from the addressing
architecture, but I also don't think it is required.
Once RFC2893bis blows it away its gone whether or not the addressing
architecture contains the defintion for compatible addresses.

  Erik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:12:29 +0200 (EET)

> architecture contains the defintion for compatible addresses.

I suggested removing compat-addrs earlier, but it didn't get support from 
Bob.. perhaps now it's a better time.

IMO, if the aim is to get rid of compats in RFC2893bis, talking about 
compatible addresses in new addrarch (which is draft standard, so it'll be 
around for a long time..) is just plain confusing.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords