>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:09:32 +0200 (CEST),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Of course I will. However, we should also provide backward
>> compatibility to applications that are statically linked with older
>> libraries. (probably my text in the previous message was unclear,
>> sorry).
> Ah - static linking is such a mess :-(
> If you need to solve the static linking issue then there is a hard
> problem for passing sin6_scope_id from the kernel to the application.
That's right. This is the difficult part of the problem.
> Somehow the kernel needs to know whether the application wants the backwards
> compatible (top 4 bits being zero so the statically linked
> getnameinfo/if_indextoname will work) scope_id or the new one.
> Thus the kernel needs to be able to tell whether the application was statically
> linked against getnameinfo. This is hard as far as I know.
Yes, so, I guess we have (at least) three options.
1. just forget statically linked applications
2. care about statically linked applications for sending side only
3. care about statically linked applications for both sending and
receiving side
#2 might be a reasonable point of compromise. If we can agree with
this, things will be quite easy.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
