>>I think it should be illegal too. Its like running telnetv4 and
>>telnetv6 on the same node. Pretty stupid IMO. But if we have a socket
>>level option to not accept v4mapped for af_inet6 it will let it happen
>>in theory (not that I believe we should).
>
>>Forget the socket level option--just adopt the SCTP solution in
>general. If you are going to allow binding to subsets of addresses
>you might as well make it completely general.
Well its not that easy. We still do not want af_inet6 listner to get
the connections for IPv4 if there is an af_inet listener. That is the
only real problem, which the socket level option fixes.
Whether we like it or not we will have to deal with stupid permisible
behavior like INADDR_ANY binding to port 23 and in6addr_any binding to
port 23. It will happen.
>There need not be anything SCTP-specific about calling bind() multiple
>times... You do not need the socket option at all.
Thats not why we need it.
I need to still look at your sctp api so I can't comment on that.
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
