----- Original Message ----- From: "Markku Savela" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:59 PM Subject: Re: IPV6_V6ONLY and a possible generic alternative
> > > From: "Kyle C Quest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The rfc2553bis draft introduces the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option to let > > applications limit the use of an ipv6 socket > > to ipv6 communication only. I think a better(more generic) solution would be > > a generic socket option which says "my family only". > > There could be "SO_ONEFAMILY" or similar generic socket option to do that. > > The idea is that if we have a socket > > and we want to restrict it to IPv6 or IPv4 (or some future IPvX) we'd have a > > way to do that. > > This is wrong direction to go. MOST applications should never care > whether the communication is over IPv6 or IPv4 (or whatever > IPvX). > > If a new IPv6 application is written, it should work the same with > IPv4 and IPv6. If it does not, then I would consider application > (and API) broken. > You bring up a good point... but why then rfc2553bis draft defines IPV6_V6ONLY option? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
