On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:25 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote: > I am not going to dive in here and increase my responses on this thread > and eat up my limited messages I will bombard this list with ok, > supporting the mail model less mail is better and keeping low on Rob's > messages list each week.
Better waste less bandwidth with the above and send a bit more messages ;) > But, besides v4mapped being widely deployed on > "vendor" "production" shipping code bases, used today by applications, Please name these 'vendor's and 'applications' I am quite sure if you ask them that they think it should be removed if they have made to try the code run on more than a single platform. > believe v4mapped is a very useful and elegant solution for application > providers to provide a common binary v4+v6 solution as an option > "technically" and superior to not using it. Please look at the Apache2 APR code which demonstrates how 'elegant' this solution is because it is not default. > I emphatically disagree > with Itojun, cmetz, et al referenced and we had this debate many years > ago, then again had the debate, and that view lost and we should not > revisit it again. You mean some people shoved the arguments away without having any background in the subject? > No one has to implement a port to IPv6 or a new > application with v4mapped addresses. It is merely an option that is > available to a programmer and upto them and it is available on > production platforms today. The production platforms mostly use KAME stacks, the other is Windows. Guess what both of these platform don't have, at least turned on per default: ipv4-mapped. Please name the platforms you call 'production'. > Mark Andrews point is quite valid and that is the responsibility of each > implementation to document their use of v4mapped, and out of scope for > the IETF as that is an implementation manner. Whether it is useful to > document various behaviors (INFO, BCP) is not clear to me that is > necesary and see UNIX Network Programming Volume I Third Edition. Which nicely mentions the use of getaddrinfo() and separately doing :: and 0.0.0.0 with IPV6_ONLY sockets because of the inherit issues mentioned by Itojun. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
