On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Brian Zill wrote:
> >From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >Deprecate IPV6_V6ONLY, add IPV6_ACCEPTV4MAPPED option
> >> >
> >> > Then the IPv6 sockets would have to be explicitly
> >> > allowed to accept IPv4 connections. So the programs
> >> > that use the IPv6 centric way have to be modified a
> >> > bit, but the buggy implementations and the unworkable
> >> > one could be corrected without losing features. Just
> >> > making IPV6_V6ONLY default to on would have the same
> >> > results.
> >>
> >> I really love to see this happen (polarity change is enough).
> >> also, if IPv4 mapped address support becomes optional
> >> (explicitly) to OS implementers it would be much better.
> >
> >In hindsight I agree that the default should have been
> >different - forcing applications to explicitly request use of
> >IPv4-mapped addresses on AF_INET6 sockets. But I suspect that
> >folks have different opinions on the cost of changing the
> >default at this point in time :-(
>
> I have absolutely no problem with changing the default at this time. As
> several other posters have suggested, I think this would be a really
> good thing to do.
it seems that there are many people in favor of changing the behaviour
of AF_INET6 sockets: itojun, pekka, me, horape, brian, erik.
only jim and francis do not agree. is it necessary to have consensus
of EVERYBODY to change something in a draft, or is 75% a sufficient
percentage?
--
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
