Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > boote> This seems to contradict the recommendation in RFC 3493 (which I realize > boote> is only informational)... I've been doing a web search to try and find > boote> some kind of record for the rational used for making this default to > boote> v6only. I haven't found anything substantial yet. Does anyone on this > boote> list know why? (I'm guessing there must be a good reason - and if so, I > boote> want to make sure I'm dealing with those issues in my applications.) > > Yes, this breakage against RFC2553/3493 is intentional. Please refer: > > draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt
Thanks! So... This would mean an application that wanted to be address independent would have to create a socket for every single wildcard sockaddr returned from getaddrinfo. And then use select/accept instead of just accept. That is kind of ugly... But, I guess it does make sense in the new world of multiple addresses and address families per host. jeff _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
