On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 15:42, Francis Dupont wrote:
> 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.
Point taken. From my point of view it would be very useful to have a
specification how IPv4-mapped should behave in the IPv6 API but I'm not
about to try and force this on those who have to deal with the BSD
sockets API.
It would be a pity, though, if BSD like systems were to not support it.
Portability problems are bound to ensue.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
