Re: (ngtrans) Re: v4 mapped multicast addresses
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please take a look at the following paper, it gives you a great detail about AF independent programming: .%A Craig Metz .%T Protocol Independence Using the Sockets API .%B "Proceedings of the freenix track: 2000 USENIX annual technical conference" .%D June 2000 where can i get this? can you point me to an URL? thanks. -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ferrara Linux User Grouphttp://www.ferrara.linux.it Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it 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]
Re: v4 mapped multicast addresses
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but should applications be able to use v4 mapped multicast addresses the same way they use v6 multicast addresses? I have been working under the assumption that draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-00.txt intends just this, but there is at least one popular implementation that doesnt support this (yet). I don't think this has been discussed much on the mailing list. We did agree that for IPv4-compatible addresses it didn't make sense at all to allow IPv4 multicast addresses. Initially I didn't see the need for multicast addresses in the IPv4-mapped space, but when folks did an implementation of the java.net classes that transparently did IPv6 and IPv4 it was a real pain to make the multicast class work without being able to always open an AF_INET6 socket issue IPV6_JOINGROUP socket options with either a native IPv6 multicast address or an IPv4-mapped multicast address. The alternative would have been to allow the IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP socket option on AF_INET6 sockets. I don't think this is necessary for real applications since they presumably know whether they are using to use IPv6 or IPv4 multicast before creating the socket. Erik 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]
Re: v4 mapped multicast addresses
I think we did discuss this is the past and concluded that the v4-mapped v6 addresses were only meaningful when carrying IPv4 non-loopback, unicast addresses. Thus, the IPv6 node should not have to do multiple, different prefix checks to determine if an address is a multicast address or a loopback address. I thought that discussion was for IPv4-compatible addresses. Did we have the discussion for IPv4-mapped addresses as well? Erik 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]
