Fred,
Just glancing at the archives over the past few weeks, on the
subject of IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 addresses, the
discussion that has taken place so far is incomplete in that
it fails to mention ISATAP addresses. (Same comment also
for the subject thread on: AYIYA link local
Now that the thread has quieted down..
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Tim Chown wrote:
I thought compatibles had (or were) being removed. That's why all reference
to them was removed from the new transition mechanisms RFC update? See
section 9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt. If we're doing a u-turn
In your previous mail you wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:24 +0100, Francis Dupont wrote:
So IMHO the only useful answer we can get from this discussion is about
this day, i.e., are there used implementations today which don't support
the two sockets for a server with
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that at least all the BSD's and most Linuxes are using this.
They allow binding on :: (IPv6 any) and also accept IPv4 connections on
the same socket,
OpenBSD doesn't allow this. FreeBSD and NetBSD don't by default, but
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
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
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 03:45 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:25 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
SNIP
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
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
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 10:12 +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
SNIP
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
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 08:34 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
I am not speaking to you anymore on the IETF and I do recall you now
from Brussels and your manners were the same there and your innuendos
without facts.
Ahem? I *asked* you a simple question then: What is the actual usage.
This is what I
: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:13 AM
To: Jeroen Massar
Cc: Bound, Jim; IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
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
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?
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 09:24 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
Using AF_INET6 as only socket and handling both v4 and v6 can only be done
well if the implementation supports a hybrid v4-v6 stack.
A pure dual stack (code path for v4 and code path for v6 see URL pdf
below) is not friendly to use v4-mapped
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:02:05 +0100), Jeroen
Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
* That is under the assumption that Windows + KAME + Linux together are
'most', which could quite well be true with the number of XP's out there
on the market and the fact that KAME is in
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:39:15PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address
architecture. There is current usage and removing them would break other
specifications.
I would agree with that conclusion
From: Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Really the only remaining portability issue is the default behaviour of
bind(::) (without any specific options set).
In Symbian OS API, see
http://www.symbian.com/developer/techlib/v70docs/SDL_v7.0/doc_source/reference/cpp/Tcpip/
Bind to any (for
I agree with you (Jim): the question is philosophical: is IPv6 a new
version of the IP protocol or is IPv6 a new protocol?. In the first
case it is natural to inject the IPv4 space into the IPv6 space and
ignore the version when it is irrelevant, i.e., in 99% of real cases.
Of course I am for
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:48 +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
From: Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Really the only remaining portability issue is the default behaviour of
bind(::) (without any specific options set).
In Symbian OS API, see
Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
It is indeed in POSIX, but why don't admit that it is a mistake to have
it? I though that it was a great idea too, until the Windows
implementation came out that does not and cannot support it due to it's
separate stacks.
That separation was a point in time
All,
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 13:32, Tony Hain wrote:
That separation was a point in time implementation choice that is likely to
change in other versions of the OS. The split stack implementation by itself
does not preclude the right thing from happening through either a shim or
direct
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:
IPv4-mapped addresses facilitate an important interoperability mechanism
in the socket API (RFC 3493, section 3.7). While it's probably not a good
idea to transmit these addresses on the wire, I think the API still needs
a way
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 10:41 +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:
IPv4-mapped addresses facilitate an important interoperability mechanism
in the socket API (RFC 3493, section 3.7). While it's probably not a good
idea to transmit
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:27:11AM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address
architecture. There is current usage and removing them would break other
specifications.
So then let me add another voice for deprecation. My experience is
that the
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 04:27 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
In response to my question about keeping the IPv6 Addresses with Embedded
IPv4 Addresses (e.g., compatible and mapped) I heard the following:
SNIP
My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address
architecture. There
From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus that applications should be using multiple sockets, one
for IPv4 and one for IPv6 and one for whatever follows.
I strongly object to this. There are other socket api's which don't
have the Unix inherited drawbacks. For such, the recommendation is
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 16:36 +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus that applications should be using multiple sockets, one
for IPv4 and one for IPv6 and one for whatever follows.
I strongly object to this. There are other socket api's which don't
have
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
I strongly object to this. There are other socket api's which don't
have the Unix inherited drawbacks. For such, the recommendation is
exactly the opposite: the same socket works just fine for IPv4 and
IPv6, and in unifying the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
There is no reason for application to care at all whether actual
connection is over IPv4 or IPv6.
There are plenty of reasons. Logging, resolving addresses, applying
application-level access control, application-level virtual
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that at least all the BSD's and most Linuxes are using this.
They allow binding on :: (IPv6 any) and also accept IPv4 connections on
the same socket,
OpenBSD doesn't allow this. FreeBSD and NetBSD don't by default, but
it can be enabled there.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that at least all the BSD's and most Linuxes are using this.
They allow binding on :: (IPv6 any) and also accept IPv4 connections on
the same socket,
OpenBSD doesn't allow this. FreeBSD and
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:27 AM
To: IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Hi,
In response to my question about keeping the IPv6 Addresses
with Embedded
IPv4 Addresses (e.g., compatible and mapped) I
, thus it matter than?
Greets,
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeroen Massar
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Markku Savela
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Bob Hinden
Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Platform Lab. Samsung Electronics.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Bound, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:23 AM
To: Bob Hinden; IPv6 WG
Subject: RE: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Folks,
I strongly agree
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Folks,
I strongly agree with Bob Hinden. We have been down this path before
and discussion. IPv4-Mapped addresses are now used on every production
implementation and in most IPv6 production IP dual
]; IPv6 WG ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Folks,
I strongly agree with Bob Hinden. We have been down this path before
and discussion. IPv4-Mapped addresses are now used on every
production
implementation
Pekka,
At 07:39 AM 02/01/2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address
architecture. There is current usage and removing them would break other
specifications.
I would agree with that conclusion for mapped
Hi,
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this
I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made
was to remove Section 2.5.5 IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses
from the document. This would include removing the special case in
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 04:48 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this
I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made
was to remove Section 2.5.5 IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses
from the
Jeroen,
At 05:24 AM 01/31/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 04:48 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this
I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made
was to remove Section 2.5.5 IPv6
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 08:41, Bob Hinden wrote:
Removing it, thus would mean that all these applications are broken and
need to be updated, which actually is true, having that programs should
use multiple sockets and use getaddrinfo() to figure out the correct
sockets to bind on. This has some
From: Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They should not be removed from a new version of the spec without a
mention in the newer version about *why* they were removed.
They should not be removed. Implementations already support it,
removing would just create confusion. I don't see any harm
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Hinden
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 7:49 AM
To: IPv6 WG
Subject: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
Hi,
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this
I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this I
am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made was
to remove Section 2.5.5 IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses from
the document. This would
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
I am working on an update to the IPv6 address architecture. In doing this
I am working through the comments on the previous draft. One comment made
was to remove Section 2.5.5 IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses
from the document. This would
44 matches
Mail list logo
