Re: code for IPv6 or for AF independence

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B]

>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:15:32 -0300, 
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

> After some discussions in the Debian IPv6 project I'm coming here
> to hear this wg's opinion about what should "normal application"
> programmers do?

> By "normal application" I mean those that don't need to know what
> network protocol is being used in the communication (telnet, smtp,
> pop, etc, could run over tcp/ipv4, tcp/ipv6, tcp/ipx or any other
> stream protocol with no changes)

> Should we program for AF independence (using getaddrinfo/getnameinfo)
> or for IPv6 (and relying in IPv4 mapped addresses for compatibility)

I'd personally like the AF-independent style, and I believe it is the
working group consensus as well, at least for clients (i.e. active
open) side.

However, for the server side (i.e. passive open), there are several
opinions.  Some people argue that the AF-independent style is still
better, because of its flexbility and simplicity of access actrol.
Some other people argue that using mapped addresses is better for
porting existing IPv4-only applications with as less effort as
possible.

                                        Jinmei, Tatuya
                                        Communication Platform Lab.
                                        Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
                                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------