On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > We still have a chance IPv4 mapped to at least _deprecate_, that is what > I mentioned in my other message, the usage of these addresses and to > note that implementors should really be using separate sockets, which is > also what getaddrinfo() tells one to do.
RFC3493 solves this by having IPV6_V6ONLY. We just need to wait for all platforms to implement it :) > What has Netscape to do with Apache? Or am I really missing something? > Then again I don't follow corporate takeovers and such, got better > things to do; Netscape do have some influence with Mozilla/Firefox et > al, and they also had a lot of problems with this, they actually almost > refused to do a Windows IPv6 version because they didn't understand the > concept of a separate IPv6 and IPv4 socket. Also see: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175340 Just to clear things up, I wrote a lot of the code that deals with it in Apache httpd, and apr. And I've never worked for Netscape. I think Jim may be implying that Netscape took a different (possibly superiour) approach. I know not :) > There are many more examples of code out on the internet that > demonstrate that having the v4-mapped addresses only gives a lot of > issues. You haven't named one application though that does not have it. In fairness, this does not matter. mapped-addresses are useful from a certain perspective anyway. If there is some in-house trivial application that only needs to run on Linux, there is no good reason why mapped-addresses should not be used as an easy migration. Whether or not the portability problems outweigh this kind of limited benefit is a subjective judegment call - and one on which consensus is unlikely to ever be reached. RFC3493 encourages vendors to implement the IPV6_V6ONLY option (something neither 2133 nor 2553 had), so that's the nod that's needed on this front. Really the only remaining portability issue is the default behaviour of bind(::) (without any specific options set). So in summary, my mind has been changed a little on mapped-addresses - in that although I wouldn't use them, they have a use in limited circumstances - but some kind of encouragement to vendors to consolidate a standard behavior for a bind/listen call could be desirable. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
