On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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) why not? -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF indep... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF indep... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF indep... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF indep... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... horape
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independen... Jim Bound
