>> => you can use it with the V6ONLY stuff.
>yes, but on rfc2553-compliant system you cannot have both an AF_INET
>and an AF_INET6 socket listening on the same port.
(just a picky comment) RFC2553 does not talk about the behavior
when try to bind(2) to both :: and 0.0.0.0 on the same port. some
systems reject bind(2) to 0.0.0.0, some does not.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 i... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Dave Thaler
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Tim Hartrick
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Erik Nordmark
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Christian Huitema
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... David Terrell
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Pekka Savola
