On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> o Do not route inbound IPv4 traffic to AF_INET6 sockets. When an
> application would like to accept IPv4 traffic, it should explicitly
> open AF_INET sockets. You may want to run two applications instead,
> one for an AF_INET socket, and another for an AF_INET6 socket. Or you
> may want to make the functionality optional, off by default, and let
> the userland applications explicitly enable it. This greatly
> simplifies access control issues. This approach conflicts with what
> IPv6 basic API document says, however, it should raise no problem with
> properly-written IPv6 applications. It only affects server programs,
> ported by assuming the behavior of AF_INET6 listening socket against
> IPv4 traffic.
i am not a software engineer - only a student and a developer - and
i am new of this list, so i don't even know if i am allowed to speak
here. but if you want to hear my opinion i think you shouldn't take such a
decision too easily. this would mean that nearly ALL ipv6 servers
and kernel implementations should be rewritten. that would a considerable
step back in the development of ipv6 software. imho there is also a
contradiction with the development of draft-rfc2553bis towards a
protocol-indipendent api.
as mr. itoh says, the best solution is probably to forbid every use of
ipv4 mapped addresses except for node representation.
--
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
