Subject: RE: [Mip6] about DSMIPv6

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:19:36 -0800

> I've implemented v4traversal-00 draft.
 > 
 > I agree Francis, the IPv4 mapped address has a special meaning by RFC
 > 2553 API.  It is not preferable to use the mapped address in IPv6
 > headers (See the following the drafts)
 > 	draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful
 > 	draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful
 > 
 > In our code based on KAME, the IPv6 implementation discard a IPv6
 > header which has the v4 mapped address for sanity at ip6_input() and
 > ip6_rthadr2().  We also need to add the mapped address in an address
 > list (the list of all addresses which the node has) to receive the
 > header.  This is somehow uncomfortable because the mapped address is
 > actually not routable.

=> No one suggested that it should/would be routable. It's simply
used to keep the packet format. There is no routing based on this 
information. 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:51:28 +0900

Hi Hesham,

I am not sure whether it's just an implementation issues.  But putting
the mapped address in the address list in order to process the DSMIP
IPv6 header means the mapped address may be chosen as a source address
even the address is actually not routable.  To avoid this, we need
e.g. an additional flag to distinguish the mapped address from others.
I think some implementers will not accept this.

The above is not only the reason again the mapped address in the IPv6
header.  Please refer the draft-*-harmful.  So, my idea is to put HoA
in IPv6 header and kind of IPv4 CoA option to idicate it's IPv4 CoA.

BTW, if you just want to keep the packer format, I think it's better
to use compatible address, or 6to4 address, or newly-defined address
for this purpose.

regards, 
Koshiro

At Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:19:36 -0800,