From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 1 04:26:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7C437B401 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from cheer.mahoroba.org (flets20-070.kamome.or.jp [218.45.20.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055E243FBD for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:26:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ume@mahoroba.org) Received: from lyrics.mahoroba.org (IDENT:X2imlJ3dUWmwN8c4i/lfqa60366u+HbF2mix4R4QLLhLIbuBE6ic+k4+MFZJQsc/@lyrics.mahoroba.org [IPv6:3ffe:501:185b:8010:280:88ff:fe03:4841]) (user=ume mech=CRAM-MD5 bits=0)h31CQOq6075322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:26:24 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from ume@mahoroba.org) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:26:23 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hajimu UMEMOTO To: "Jeff W. Boote" In-Reply-To: <3E874F6C.A76F99E8@internet2.edu> References: <20030326134823.A7029@jamaica.grc.nasa.gov> <20030327104649.B18679@jamaica.grc.nasa.gov> <3E838784.F2F4E330@internet2.edu> <3E874F6C.A76F99E8@internet2.edu> User-Agent: xcite1.38> Wanderlust/2.11.0 (Wonderwall) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.4 Emacs/21.2 (i386--freebsd) MULE/5.0 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOC1MWhsoQg==?=) X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-perl11-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.9 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT version=2.50 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.0 dual-stack server X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:26:38 -0000 Hi, >>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:11:24 -0700 >>>>> "Jeff W. Boote" 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/