On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > >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 :-(
What do you suspect the cost would be in 2-3 years?
I don't think the _current_ amount of IPv6 applications is that huge.
Almost all of these are simple tools by OS vendors, or open source. I
don't think the change would be too big _now_, especially if the change
was detected by people who don't necessarily read RFC's (e.g. compilation
fail => forced to look at issue and spend an hour thinking about it).
IMO, we haven't passed the point of no return yet. In 2-3 years we have.
And hindsight then won't be fun.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
