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

[horape]

�Hola!

> however, it's not so simple. in this way we have two indipendent protocol
> families AF_INET and AF_INET6 (i would define them orthogonal), so
> we should modify the behaviour of getaddrinfo.

No change to getaddrinfo is needed.

> in fact, when called with AI_PASSIVE flag set and AF_UNSPEC protocol
> family, in a both ipv4- and ipv6-compliant system, getaddrinfo should
> return two different results (::1 for ipv6 and 127.0.0.1 for ipv4).
> moreover, calling getaddrinfo with AF_UNSPEC protocol family should
> produce a result that's the sum of the results of two getaddrinfo
> calls (one for AF_INET and one for AF_INET6).

That's exactly how getaddrinfo works.

                                        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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------