In your previous mail you wrote:
RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence
Horacio J. Pe�a
RFC 2553 enforces the IPv4 mapped on IPv6 model for bind(2). This has
had some very useful short term results, but harms very badly the way
to AF independence, a goal that in my opinion we should try to reach.
=> I understand your concern but this is a matter of taste and RFC 2553
chose one flavour. The basic issue is whether IPv6/AF_INET6 is a new
protocol/separate address family or not.
Obviously you'd prefer the split space model but RFC 2553 specifies a
merged space model, i.e. "IPv6 is not a new protocol, IPv6 is a new
version of the IP protocol". Of course one version must be represented in
the other so IPv4 is injected into IPv6 as mapped addresses. There are
pros and cons but RFC 2553 (and its revision which should be published soon)
makes the support of this mandatory.
You can just believe that AF_INET should be obsolete ASAP (this is not yet
the case but is a reasonable target, isn't it?)
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: the technical part was already discussed in the V6ONLY thread...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
