we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I suggested
it) and no one on either side wanted that. thinking was even if one did
not get their choice then its better to have default for the users.
also this is not a holy war. that was a mis-characterization.
in fact it was about 6 to 3 ratio in favor of v6only not being the
default. or if there were 9 people only 3 wanted what you want.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> �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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
