In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Narten
writes:
> I'm not involved in this in detail, so I may be off base, but my
> understanding is that the advanced API has not been picked up by Open
> Group because its members didn't support doing so -- they just didn't
> see a need to.
>
> My own take is that standardization of the advanced API just isn't
> compelling. When I did a survey in the past of what various vendors
> had done with the advanced API, I found that none implemented it
> completely. Rather, most implemented bits and pieces of it depending
> on what applications needed the funcitonality (or just implemented
> private versions for the applications that needed the
> functionality). And since the functionality in the adnvanced API (by
> definition) isn't needed accept by fairly exotic usages, it's hard to
> make the arguement that it needs to be implemented for basic
> interoperability.
>
> Thomas
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to make UDP replies work without using a
descriptor per address you listen on you need part's of the
advanced API.
Named uses the advanced API to get reply UDP traffic
sourced from the correct address.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
