> > => 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.
>=> you can do it with the V6ONLY stuff. (again)
again, there's no explicit text about this issue. i believe you are
assuming a couple of things beyond documented, like when bind(2) should
fail (it is also not documented).
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... David Borman
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Dave Thaler
- 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... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- 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... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Christian Huitema
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
