>> - change RFC2553 API to disable RFC2553-inbound
>> PROS: applications gets simplified very well, AF_INET6 is
>> always IPv6, AF_INET is always IPv4 (good for security)
>> PROS: RFC2553-inbound case is gone, application writers do not
>> need to care about RFC2553-inbound cases
>> CONS: SIIT itself is okay, but now unnatural
>This also has the CONS that it makes it harder to port current AF_INET
>server applications to support both IPv4 and IPv6 - you can no longer have
>a single in6addr_any AF_INET6 listening/receiving socket.
we can make it switchable via setsockopt, if the ported application
requires RFC2553-inbound behavior (i think jim mentioned it in past
email about netbsd implementation - which is one of the proposals
from us).
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
