We have come to the same conclusion that IPV6_V6ONLY should be allowed to change only if no bind or connect has been called on that socket. Do the RFC authors agree? If so, can we expect the next draft of this RFC to have this restriction? Thanks Lori -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF indep... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the wa... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Lori Napoli
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the wa... Francis Dupont
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Dave Thaler
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the wa... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the wa... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Mauro Tortonesi
