[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d48793d-81f1-3666-5c47-9c2431198dc1@udel.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:26:04 -0500
From: "Jonathan T. Leighton" <jtleight@...l.edu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: TCP using IPv4-mapped IPv6 address as source
On 1/11/17 3:43 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 14:59 -0500, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
>
>> I think the RFC states somewhere that you should never ever
>> send out a v4 mapped address on the wire.
> Can you point the exact RFC ?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2765 seems to allow just that.
Link was in my original post. See table 20:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6890#page-14
> Jonathan issue is about terminating such flows in TCP stack, which is
> likely not needed/useful.
I'm sure I understand what you're saying here. There should be no flow
to terminate.
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists