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

[Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino]

>       they raise fundamental portability issues when you implement more
>       complex applications like BIND9 (see BIND9 doc/misc/ipv6).
>=> we introduce the V6ONLY stuff in order to fix this. Are you
>saying there are still issues if:
> - the implementation is RFC 2553 bis compliant
> - the implementation has IPV6_V6ONLY as specified in the draft
> - the implementation has a BSD style SO_REUSEADDR
>?

        IPV6_V6ONLY is a good thing, but there still are items unclear.
        please re-read drafts with fresh eyes, and you'll find out.

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------