> 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. then we'd have to deprecate SIIT at least. still, you cannot be sure that ::ffff:0:0/96 are not on the wire. itojun _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf