From owner-freebsd-net Thu Aug 2 8:28:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F0E37B405 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:28:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7FB4B27; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:28:04 +0900 (JST) To: tech-net@netbsd.org, net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: assar's message of 02 Aug 2001 17:15:30 +0200. <5lk80mebn1.fsf@assaris.sics.se> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: getaddrinfo() and PF_LOCAL From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:28:04 +0900 Message-ID: <17251.996766084@itojun.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> we had a local discussion within KAME. we do not really like to >> support PF_LOCAL, unless there's clear standard behavior for AF_LOCAL >> case. >I think this is the wrong approach. If we're always going to wait for >a clear and standarized behaviour of something before implementing it, >I'm afraid that this is not going to appear and if there is actually a >standard for it, then it will have been written without the help of >implementation and usage experience. we can probably try it out (if it seems really necessary for us) on KAME tree, but not on *BSD-current nor *BSD official releases. itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message