Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:09:50 +0900 From: itojun@iijlab.net To: Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com> Cc: bugs@freebsd.org, huntting@glarp.com, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org>, core@kame.net Subject: Re: kern/21016: IPV6_JOIN_GROUP doesnt work for mapped IPv4 multicast addresses Message-ID: <18536.968166590@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: huntting's message of Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:02:52 CST. <200009051502.JAA26962@hunkular.glarp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>"basic" as in draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-00.txt "Basic Socket
>Interface Extensions for IPv6". But more specifically, the paragraph
>4 of section 2:
(snip)
>And since section 5.2 of this draft clearly lays out the multicast
>socket options, it would seem that multicast is "basic", and that
>one should be able to use this multicast API on mapped addresses.
>Besides, it makes sense to include multicast. Otherwise each
>application will need seperate code to deal with v4 and v6 multicast
>addresses. And this is exactly the problem that mapped v4 addresses
>are supposed to solve.
My take is that IPv4 mapped address helps porting of very limited set
of applications ("basic" application in my sense), and the limitation
is like this:
- original AF_INET application has no setsockopt(IPPROTO_IP)
as there's no document which talk about how to map IPPROTO_IP
socket option and IPPROTO_IPV6 socket option, it is not
possible to map it. also, in some cases there's no counterpart
in IPv6 (like IP_OPTIONS, IP_HDRINCL, IP_RECVOPTS).
>>>Is KAME planning on fixing this anytime soon?
>> I don't think so. I can't speak for other KAME guys.
>It sounds like this is worth asking the ipng group at any rate.
please do.
itojun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18536.968166590>