�Hola!
> >IMHO, draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-03.txt should specify what is the
> >correct behaviour for bind(2). i vote for the *BSD one: by having two
> >different sockets binding indipendently one from the other, we can
> >get rid of all the problems given by IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, and
> >have true af-indipendence. the IPV6-ONLY option and IPv4-mapped IPv6
> >address should not be deprecated, but their use should be unrecommended.
> >this policy would lead to the best result with only minor changes in the
> >draft and in the existing ipv6 implementations.
> I have been trying SO HARD to suggest it in api discussion group (which
> is a small group of people who contributed 2553bis-03 updates), but
> was rejected. it is a holy war where there's no end. one side
> advocates AF_INET6 only world, one side advocates AF_INET6/AF_INET
> splitted socket (or at least make the default behavior so).
> I'm of course in the second camp.
So, it's a holy war, and no consensus has been achieved. Could we at least
allow both styles to work? Right now, that it isn't possible.
> in fact, as far as i understand, there's no good standard document
> on bind(2) interaction between two IPv4 sockets. so defining it
> for IPv4/v6 interaction would be a big task.
Maybe we should start writing that document? (although I see working for IPv4
a waste of time and effort)
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
