Re: [Int-area] practical issues with using v4-mapped addresses for nat64

[Dave Thaler <dthaler at windows.microsoft.com>]

Correct.

Just like deprecating site locals resulted in people treating them
same as globals (no special case), deprecating v4-compatibles
resulted in treating them same as globals (no code checks for
this range).  I don't know how non-Windows OSs deal with this,
hence my suggestion that Marcelo/Iljitsch try this on the
other OS's they're checking for comparison.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon at nominum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:43 PM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: int-area at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] practical issues with using v4-mapped addresses
> for nat64
>
> On Jul 23, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > I just tried on Vista SP1 and it does send out a packet natively to
> > a ::/96 address, although I believe Windows XP still supported
> > v4-compatible tunnels and so won't (but XP doesn't claim to work
> > on IPv6-only networks).
>
> Just to be clear, do you mean that if an IPv6 app opens an IPv6 socket
> and connects to a ::/96 address, the Vista network stack forms an IPv6
> frame and sends it to that address just as it would to any ordinary
> IPv6 address?
>

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area