Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
an address like ::FFFF:192.0.2.3
afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe.
Whether the stacks are independent code modules or
alternate paths through the same code is irrelevant
to the externally observed behavior.

	see draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06.txt section 2.2.

Sure. I absolutely don't like to see ::FFFF/96 on the wire.

    Brian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]