In your previous mail you wrote:
>> Another way is to deprecate RFC2553 section 3.7, however, due to the
>> wide deployment of applications that use IPv6 basic API, the option is
>> not feasible.
>=> I strongly object to this part of your proposal. IMHO IPv6 is NOT
>a new protocol, it is only a new version of the IP protocol. So the
>right target is to provide an "all version" API, as it is easy to inject
>IPv4 into IPv6, the section 3.7 is the right idea!
please be sure to read the whole draft.
=> I read it when you posted it in the bugtraq list..
i disagree that RFC2460 section 3.7 is a good idea,
=> this is a matter of taste and obviously we deeply disagree.
as it adds a lot of complication into the kernel API (AF_INET
setsockopt operations on AF_INET6 socket, multicast, complicated
and unauditable tcp/udp/pcb layer).
=> this is not so hard and one stack supporting the two versions is
simpler than two different parallel stacks for each version.
it seems right for shortterm porting, but it actually hurts
people in long term.
=> my target is not easy short-term porting, it is more a long term
and philosophical issue.
Regards
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
