> Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but should applications
> be able to use v4 mapped multicast addresses the same way they use
> v6 multicast addresses? I have been working under the assumption
> that draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-00.txt intends just this, but
> there is at least one popular implementation that doesnt support
> this (yet).
I don't think this has been discussed much on the mailing list.
We did agree that for IPv4-compatible addresses it didn't make sense
at all to allow IPv4 multicast addresses.
Initially I didn't see the need for multicast addresses in the IPv4-mapped
space, but when folks did an implementation of the java.net classes that
transparently did IPv6 and IPv4 it was a real pain to make the multicast
class work without being able to
always open an AF_INET6 socket
issue IPV6_JOINGROUP socket options with either a native IPv6
multicast address or an IPv4-mapped multicast address.
The alternative would have been to allow the IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP socket
option on AF_INET6 sockets.
I don't think this is necessary for real applications since they
presumably know whether they are using to use IPv6 or IPv4 multicast
before creating the socket.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
