Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:29:21 -0700 From: "Jeff W. Boote" <boote@internet2.edu> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.0 dual-stack server Message-ID: <3E89BE61.3EDE4AEF@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> <yge65pyiets.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > 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 Thanks! So... This would mean an application that wanted to be address independent would have to create a socket for every single wildcard sockaddr returned from getaddrinfo. And then use select/accept instead of just accept. That is kind of ugly... But, I guess it does make sense in the new world of multiple addresses and address families per host. jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E89BE61.3EDE4AEF>