Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:26:23 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> To: "Jeff W. Boote" <boote@internet2.edu> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.0 dual-stack server Message-ID: <yge65pyiets.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <3E874F6C.A76F99E8@internet2.edu> References: <20030326134823.A7029@jamaica.grc.nasa.gov> <20030327104649.B18679@jamaica.grc.nasa.gov> <3E838784.F2F4E330@internet2.edu> <yge4r5kvfvg.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <3E874F6C.A76F99E8@internet2.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:11:24 -0700
>>>>> "Jeff W. Boote" <boote@internet2.edu> said:
boote> Hmm. So the trade-off is calling select or using IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED?
Yes.
boote> (My applications need to understand the addresses at a pretty detailed
boote> level anyway - I'll probably stick to the dual-stack method.)
What do you mean the dual-stack method, here? If you mean that you
want to format IP address to string form, you can use getnameinfo()
for this purpose. getnameinfo() is address family independent
function.
boote> This seems to contradict the recommendation in RFC 3493 (which I realize
boote> is only informational)... I've been doing a web search to try and find
boote> some kind of record for the rational used for making this default to
boote> v6only. I haven't found anything substantial yet. Does anyone on this
boote> list know why? (I'm guessing there must be a good reason - and if so, I
boote> want to make sure I'm dealing with those issues in my applications.)
Yes, this breakage against RFC2553/3493 is intentional. Please refer:
draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@bisd.hitachi.co.jp ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yge65pyiets.wl%ume>