[Topic changed. If you respond to this, please drop unrelated mailing
lists.]
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 14:54, Bill Manning wrote:
> regarding the use of mapped addresses:
>
> draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt
>
> might be a useful ID to review before committing this draft to the
> stds process.
These issues are completely unrelated. The API issues are real but they
are not something that can or should be considered in a protocol
specification.
[Sorry for the off-topicness of the following]
I'm not too happy about RFC2553 myself in this respect, and I strongly
support the "Alternative solution" (fully specify IPv4-mapped behaviour)
in the above mentioned draft.
I can attest from implementation experience that it is possible to
create a hybrid IPv4/IPv6 stack implementation that uses around 80-90%
shared code between IPv4 and IPv6. All IPv4 addresses are handled in
IPv4-mapped format internally inside the stack.
Our sockets API is (mostly) version agnostic. Most applications are not
even aware which IP version they are using. The OS is not a unix
derivative and did not have the legacy baggage of the BSD style sockets
API. The API that was already defined for IPv4 yielded very easily to
support IPv6.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
