From owner-freebsd-bugs  Tue Sep  5  8: 9:56 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F38737B422
	for <bugs@freebsd.org>; Tue,  5 Sep 2000 08:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W/smtpfeed 1.06) with ESMTP id AAA18538;
	Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:09:51 +0900 (JST)
To: Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com>
Cc: bugs@freebsd.org, huntting@glarp.com,
	Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org>, core@kame.net
In-reply-to: huntting's message of Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:02:52 CST.
      <200009051502.JAA26962@hunkular.glarp.com>
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: kern/21016: IPV6_JOIN_GROUP doesnt work for mapped IPv4 multicast addresses 
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:09:50 +0900
Message-ID: <18536.968166590@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>"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