Subject: IPV6_V6ONLY and a possible generic alternative

From: "Kyle C Quest" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:36:13 -0400

The rfc2553bis draft introduces the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option to let
applications limit the use of an ipv6 socket
to ipv6 communication only. I think a better(more generic) solution would be
a generic socket option which says "my family only".
There could be "SO_ONEFAMILY" or similar generic socket option to do that.
The idea is that if we have a socket
and we want to restrict it to IPv6 or IPv4 (or some future IPvX) we'd have a
way to do that.

I don't know if this idea has been already discussed here... (I checked only
the last couple of months).
I'd like to know what people think about it.

Thank you,

Kyle C Quest

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:59:52 +0300

> From: "Kyle C Quest" <[email-masked]>
> 

This is wrong direction to go. MOST applications should never care
whether the communication is over IPv6 or IPv4 (or whatever
IPvX).

If a new IPv6 application is written, it should work the same with
IPv4 and IPv6. If it does not, then I would consider application
(and API) broken.

---

From: "Kyle C Quest" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:16:20 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Markku Savela" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: IPV6_V6ONLY and a possible generic alternative

> IPv4 and IPv6. If it does not, then I would consider application

You bring up a good point... but why then rfc2553bis draft defines
IPV6_V6ONLY option?

---

From: Michael Hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:26:45 -0700

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:16:20 -0400
"Kyle C Quest" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]
> You bring up a good point... but why then rfc2553bis draft defines

From 2553bis:
  An example use of this option is to allow two versions of the same
  server process to run on the same port, one providing service over IPv6,
  the other providing the same service over IPv4.

So it can be seen as a transition mechanism.

		mph

---

From: "Kyle C Quest" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:32:05 -0400

> So it can be seen as a transition mechanism.
I was trying to say that the generic alternative to IPV6_V6ONLY does not
introduce a completly new functionality (it extends/generalizes the
functionality that's
there for a reason).

There has been a discussion about IPV6_V6ONLY option when
the ability for IPv6 applications to interoperate with IPv4 application was
implemented in Linux IPv6 stack (earlier this month). It seems better (more
correct)
to have a generic option to accomplish the same task.

Kyle