anyone can speak here and this is valuable.
the apis will work in 2553bis. what one does with their implementation
and how they pass ipv4 or ipv6 to the app and the apis is not anyones
business in a standards community or anywhere else. if one has an issue
with the API thats fine but not with how implementors build their stack.
a v4 packet in can become a mapped packet in an implementation. when
presented to an af_inet. Or it can be presented as an af_inet6 (as a
mapped address). likewise going out.
rfc2553bis permit this behavior for the api and should and has for 5
years so thats a done deal and not really an IETF standard but an
informational rfc so the API for IPv6 is NOT AN IETF STANDARD. It will
standardized by the IEEE committees and XNET.
As far as v4 mapped on the wire for protocols thats a different
discussion. I personally support that it is OK and support what SIIT
has done and ready for that discussion if someone does not believe it is
a good idea.
but what I will react very badly too in my mail is any implementor that
cannot get something to work and that is what is driving their concern
and its not a standards issue for this forum, but this forum is being
used to change implementation folkways for IPv6.
but v4 mapped does not affect the ISV porting effort at all and in fact
makes their job much easier if the platform they are porting to supports
that paradigm.
do you have an example where you see the problem?
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
