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

[horape]

�Hola!

>    I get the impression you are doing mostly 2).

> => more than 2), the IPv6 support is not togglable!

In the "real world" you cannot say that. People will want to disable IPv6
for a long time.

>    As said, I don't think this works yet in real life (consider: OS
>    distributions), and is counter-productive for the spread of IPv6 as
>    distributions cannot ship ipv6 ready apps just in case unless they're 3)
>    or 4) (because that'd hurt the operation of production software).

> => my target is not the same, you want to provide an optional IPv6 support
> (so 3) or 4) are needed), I want to provide an integrated IPv6 support
> so the IPv6 support is *not* optional, there is only a possibility to
> disable it for disaster recovery (because I run the code on the same
> system I develop it, I don't use the traditional/expensive way with
> two boxes).

The same.

> [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------