scott at kitterman
Sep 9, 2011, 6:27 AM
Post #2 of 3
(929 views)
Permalink
|
On Friday, September 09, 2011 07:03:34 AM Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Hi, somehow RFC 4408 managed to have a normative reference
> to RFC 3513 when that was already obsoleted by RFC 4291.
>
> The latter was updated by RFCs 5952 and 6052. RFC 5952
> is relevant for SPF, because it fixes some details for the
> textual representation of IPv6 addresses. Section 3.3.3
> is also interesting for ARF.
>
> For RFC 6052 I'm not sure if it is relevant for SPF, what
> do the IPv6 experts here think? We knew ::FFFF:0:0/96 for
> IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. IIRC it is used in the test
> suite and/or in the reference implementation.
>
> Unsurprisingly we did not know RFC 6052 64:ff9b::/96 for
> "IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses with the well-known prefix"
> (that long name is used in RFC 6052). I think that this
> is irrelevant for SPF implementations, but I'm very far
> from sure.
My initial reaction is to update the reference and not touch the text from
4408. You can't implement IPv6 address parsing without understanding how it
works and 4408bis is not the place to explain it. We don't treat 169.254.x.x
specially for IPv4, so I don't think we need to deal with "well-known prefix"
specially either.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110909092749:81CA3642-DAE7-11E0-AF4B-EAFB568AAE2E
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
