Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

[horape]

�Hola!

>    duplication of code is (and - if we're not gonna change the API draft in a
>    significant way - will always be) inevitable. there are MANY problems in
>    handling both ipv6 and ipv4 (or better, ipv4-mapped) traffic with a single
>    AF_INET6 socket, and most of them are related to security.

> => I disagree. There is *no* security issue with IPv4-mapped addresses
> as soon as one doesn't forget them.

The problem is that not forgeting them means the same amount of work that doing
the port in the AF independent way. So the benefits of the IPv4-mapped addresses
(easy porting) get lost.

> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

                                        HoraPe
---
Horacio J. Pe�a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------