> Umm, then I may have misunderstood a former discussion about itojun's > very 1st bindtest questionnaire (around August 2000). Perhaps I > misunderstood the fact that Solaris supported separate port space for > IPv4 and IPv6. Sorry, I should've been more careful when talking > about others' implementation. Solaris does effectively have a separate port space for IPv4 and IPv6 as well as supporting IPv4-mapped addresses on AF_INET6 sockets. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Christian Huitema
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the ... David Terrell
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the ... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Pekka Savola
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the ... Erik Nordmark
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Roy Brabson
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Vladislav Yasevich
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the ... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Erik Nordmark
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... David Borman
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Dave Thaler
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way t... Jim Bound
