>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:27:16 +0200,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just to make it sure, if you mean "accepting IPv4 packets on an
> AF_INET6 socket as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses" by "the model in
> 2553", Solaris does not follow the model, AFAIK. Also, NetBSD disable
> the model by default.
> => I agree with the definition of the model... and any implementation
> which doesn't follow it or disables it by default is not compliant.
> We can't support every not compliant implementations just because
> there are too many ways to be not compliant so your argument (we have
> to support everything) is not admissible: AF independent coding style
> is perhaps better but we haven't to enforce it.
I don't oppose to your opinion above, but I don't intend to force
application programmers to be friendly with the "non-compliant"
systems.
I just want to understand the differences among the implementations on
the standpoint that
- there are surely "non-compliant" systems.
- they (the developers of the systems) have their own policy not to be
compliant (e.g. security issues), and will never change their policy.
- still, I have to write some applications including these
"non-compliant" systems for various reasons such as users' requests.
Perhaps the message of mine above sounded too strong, but I don't
intend to force my opinion on others as an admissible one. I just
described the current reality, and am wondering how I can deal with
the differences as a single programmer who has to write code for both
"compliant" and "non-compliant" systems.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
