Subject: (IPng 6576) Re: Base API: Check on IPv4 Literal Addresses

From: Jim Bound IPv6 Technical Leader UNIX Engineering Internet Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:29:26 -0400

Erik,

>JIM,
>
>> >Actually the current spec for IPv4 literal address is very confusing:
>> >	with AI_V4MAPPED		returns IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
>> >	with AI_V4MAPPED | AI_ALL	returns NULL
>> 
>> Agreed.  Neither is required to be specified.
>
>Just to make sure ...

>I assume you don't want to return a mapped address (even for literal IPv4 
>addresses) unless AI_V4MAPPED is set since it might confuse applications.

This is the question.  I personally believe the AI_V4MAPPED MUST be
specified.  But if the family is AF_INET6 why bother what else could it
return is the counter argument and why 2133 previously stated the flags
are meaningless.

I think specifying AI_V4MAPPED provides cohesion to the purpose of the
API and should be specified as the flag will isolate resolver code too
dealing with IPv6 so it is a good idea.

>Thus I think the rules for IPv4 literals with getipnodebyname(AF_INET6, ...)
>should be
>	If AI_V4MAPPED is set (with or without AI_ALL) return IPv4-mapped
>	Otherwise return NULL

I will use this extended text if I hear no objections.

So if anyone objects to Erik's proposal please respond.  I will treat
silence as agreement.

Recall folks, Oct 8th is the deadline and then we will wrap this up 
and submitt an ID and ask for this work to be moved to new Info RFC to 
replace RFC 2133.

thanks
/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------