Re: [BEHAVE] [NAT64] Hairpinning loop

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2009-11-08 01:56, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On reading section 6 a few times, I couldn't figure out a case where
>> sending a hairpin packet would actually have any value to a user.
>> There will always be another way of reaching the intended destination
>> with a native IPv6 address.
> 
> RFC 4787 section 6, RFC 5382 section 7.2, and RFC 5508 section 5 address
> this for the IPv4-IPv4 case.
> 
> Does this still apply for IPv6-IPv4?

I abstained from IPv4-IPv4 NAT discussions years ago, so I'm not
familiar with those scenarios. However, since the normal mode for
IPv6 is multiple addresses per host, I would suggest that any
communication that occurs between IPv6 hosts behind the same NAT64
SHOULD occur using some other form of address, so it is perfectly
OK to specify that hairpin packets SHOULD be dropped. It is not
the same as IPv4.

    Brian