In your previous mail you wrote: 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. => note there is no consensus at all about this ID.
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 agree but some of us are relunctant to put the burden of a full IPv4-mapped behavior on the shoulders of (other) implementors. 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. => IMHO this is the best thing to do where a dual stack is written from scratch. Our sockets API is (mostly) version agnostic. => so you should adopt our local credo: "IPv6 is not a new protocol, it is a new version of the IP protocol." 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. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
