Re: Comments on draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops

[Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>]

<586778.68736.qm@web45501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4C77700B.5050807@gont.com.ar>
<141984.91800.qm@web45509.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4C7DD861.8030705@gont.com.ar>
<E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C57034FCC@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To:
<E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C57034FCC@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Hi, Fred,

>>> A node is a host or a router. From this we deduce that the RFC does not
>>> exclude forwarding on a Teredo client.
>> Forwarding IPv6 packets would mean that the check of the source IPv4
>> address of the outer packet wrt the embedded IPv4 addresses in the
>> source IPv6 address would fail.
> 
> You are right. In light of this, it seems that forwarding 
> packets by a Teredo client is operationally unnecessary.
> Point taken.

Since this is an implementation issue (rather than operational), and
Teredo was not included in your tunnel-loops I-D, I've submitted
draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00.txt such that RFC 4380 be updated. --
comments welcome ;-)

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1