I posted the following questions to this mailing list on 6/22 but I have
not received any response yet. Now that the proposed MIBs are IETF
internet drafts should I still expect an answer to my questions on this
mailing list or should I repost my questions somewhere else?
> I am an SNMP developer and have just subscribed to this mailing list, so
I
> apologize if there has already been a discussion on this subject. I
> noticed that the IPv6 MIB Design Team internet drafts for the revised TCP
> and UDP MIBs, define version neutral MIB tables. For a server
application
> that opens an AF_INET6 socket and binds to the unspecified address
(without
> setting the IPv6_V6ONLY socket option), should there be two entries in
> these MIB tables, one with the local address as IPv4/INADDR_ANY and one
> with the local address as IPv6/unspecified? Or should there be one entry
> with the local address as IPv6/unspecified? What if the server
application
> opened an AF_INET6 socket and bound to an IPv4-mapped address? Would
there
> be one entry in the tables with the local address as IPv4/address or as
> IPv6/IPv4-mapped address? I think my real question is, are the table
> entries supposed to reflect the IP address type from the view of the flow
> of the packets on the network, or from the viewpoint of the address
family
> of the socket with which the connection/listener is associated?
Thanks!
Kristine Adamson
IBM Communications Server for MVS: TCP/IP Development
Internet e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
