Maruo,
OK I will do solicit equal numbers who want it to stay the same.
And no one said that it was a good idea.
I think being late to the party does not give one more rights than those
that took the risk either. Add the two other authors on 2553 in favor and
I will go get 10 other implementors to say don't change it and I will get
people in Sun who don't agree with Erik and we can do what Tim said and
rehash this again for the 16th time. And I can find people in compaq who
disagree with me and agree with Erik. Its a gigantic circle.
Also do you know how many times those of us early to the party ported the
base apps for IP because of working this API. I had to port two apps 3
times. I did not mind we were adding technical value. Like getaddrinfo.
This is not the case here its style. And there is running code.
The AF indepence point is illusion. We don't change RFCs because of
illusion esp the principles of those RFCs.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
