Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

        they raise fundamental portability issues when you implement more
        complex applications like BIND9 (see BIND9 doc/misc/ipv6).

=> we introduce the V6ONLY stuff in order to fix this. Are you
saying there are still issues if:
 - the implementation is RFC 2553 bis compliant
 - the implementation has IPV6_V6ONLY as specified in the draft
 - the implementation has a BSD style SO_REUSEADDR
?
   
   can we issue setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY) after bind(2) or connect(2)?
   consensus seems to be NO.

=> this is the only item about this stuff which is not yet in the draft.
It should not change the way to code applications, it is just a specification
for an error/undefined behaviour case.

Regards

[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------