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

[Erik Nordmark]

> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------