Subject: code for IPv6 or for AF independence

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:15:32 -0300

¡Hola!

After some discussions in the Debian IPv6 project I'm coming here
to hear this wg's opinion about what should "normal application"
programmers do?

By "normal application" I mean those that don't need to know what
network protocol is being used in the communication (telnet, smtp,
pop, etc, could run over tcp/ipv4, tcp/ipv6, tcp/ipx or any other
stream protocol with no changes)

Should we program for AF independence (using getaddrinfo/getnameinfo)
or for IPv6 (and relying in IPv4 mapped addresses for compatibility)

I don't believe IPv6 is a cure-all protocol. Porting one "normal
application" between PFs is not a hard work, but porting the thousands
apps we have is. We're commited to do all that work, but when the next
protocol comes we won't like to do it again.

That's why I'd think programming for AF independence should be preferred
and programming for IPv6 be restricted to IPv6 specific apps that couldn't
be written AF independent, and discouraged for "normal applications"

That's my humble opinion, but before trying to convince all the other
Debian IPv6 people, I'm asking for the opinion of this wg on this matters.

Are my reasoning and conclusion corrects?

Thanks,
					HoraPe
---
Horacio J. Peña
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Stig Ven�s <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:13:19 +0100

> or for IPv6 (and relying in IPv4 mapped addresses for compatibility)

I would say independence, you don't want the applications to work only
with IPv6-enabled kernels, right? At least basic applications are easy
to do independently, and you will get binaries that work on IPv4-only
kernels as well.

Stig

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 01:54:36 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:15:32 -0300, 
>>>>> [email-masked] said:

> or for IPv6 (and relying in IPv4 mapped addresses for compatibility)

I'd personally like the AF-independent style, and I believe it is the
working group consensus as well, at least for clients (i.e. active
open) side.

However, for the server side (i.e. passive open), there are several
opinions.  Some people argue that the AF-independent style is still
better, because of its flexbility and simplicity of access actrol.
Some other people argue that using mapped addresses is better for
porting existing IPv4-only applications with as less effort as
possible.

					Jinmei, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------