Subject: Re: (ngtrans) RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 06:43:26 +0900

>>   This paper is based on the premise that it's better writing AF
>>   independent programs than IPv6 centric ones.
>
>I think this is an over-generalization.  One of the reasons that an
>application might want to use IPv6 is to avoid some of the brain-damage
>(e.g. NAT) that has crept into to present-day IPv4 networks.  If
>you are writing a distributed application that needs global addresses,
>you might want to explicitly use IPv6 in preference to IPv4.
>So you really need a portable way to insist on IPv6.  

	i guess that is not the point of his paper...  anyway if you want to
	force IPv6, you can do getaddrinfo(3) with hints.ai_family = PF_INET6.

itojun

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:06:08 +0200

=> I agree with Itojun: the point is HoraPe's paper is a major misunstanding
of the SO_REUSEADDR option. So standard BSD implementations are considered
as buggy and Linux (which is really buggy) as the model to follow...
This is again a matter of taste but HoraPe is historically wrong (and
SO_REUSEADDR documentation should be *improved* :-).

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: RFC 2553 is clearly for *BSD* sockets, is it a real issue for people
using other flavors of sockets (Solaris, Linux, Winsock, ...) ?

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:36:37 -0400 (EDT)

I believe you missed Keiths point.  The point is with IPv6 accepting v4
and v6 there is no issue for the ISV.  Their code works with either stack
where v4 is mapped.

/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:42:35 -0400

> and v6 there is no issue for the ISV.  Their code works with either stack

not necessarily.   if the v4 network is NATted then the v4-mapped-into-v6
address is every bit as broken as the v4 address on which it is based.

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:47:19 -0400 (EDT)

Yes but that is orthogonal to the porting paradigm and that was my point.

/jim