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

[Jim Bound]

This is not a problem just a solution .....


/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])


On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > Jim Bound:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Actually I suggested it as well, so I wouldn't have a problem with no
> > default.  Anyone who wants portable apps would just always set the
> > option, no problem.
> 
> The benefit of changing the default would be that applications using
> getaddrinfo could be more address independent.
> With either the current default or an unspecified default those
> applications need code to say
>       if AF_INET6
>               turn on IPv6_V6ONLY
> 
>   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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------