On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 13:04, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:21:09PM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > It doesn't help the
> > confusion that many OS's try to confuse programmers by exposing a single
> > socket interface, etc.  Simple fact remains, IPv6 is not IPv4.
> It's a good things that the socket interface can actually work
> with all protocol!  It doesn't only work with AF_INET, but also
> AF_UNIX, and probably others.  It's a good things that things
> like socket(), bind(), connect() don't need to be replaced by
> other things.

That's actually not what I was talking about.  Please see the recent
IPv6 support thread as an example.  The fact that an OS allows IPv4
connections to be completed even though you explicitly requested IPv6
protocol, only adds to much confusion (one of many such oddities which
some OS's allow).  Heck, along those lines, they should allow NCP
connections to come through too.  Or, how about UDP traffic on TCP
sockets.  If I wanted IPv4 traffic, I'll ask for it.  Likewise of IPv6.

My point being, too many people are in a hurry to confuse/combine the
two when they are very clearly two distinct protocols, each having
distinct needs.  The faster people treat them as such, the quicker
things will become better for everyone.

The fact that some OS's attempt to blur the API lines and underlying
semantics between the two protocols only further confuses things as it
falsely leads people to believe that they are more or less the same


Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Copeland Computer Consulting

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to