Subject: rcmd_af (in 2292bis)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:29:42 +0900

Hello, sorry if it was already mentioned.

	2292bis currently defines rcmd_af() behavior for cases where
	af == AF_INET and af == AF_INET6 case.  What should I do if
	I don't really care about which AF I'd like to connect to?
	(assuming that I'll use sockaddr_storage for getsockname())
	Is it okay to allow PF_UNSPEC to be passed as last arg to rcmd_af()?

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jean-Luc Richier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:28:53 +0100 (MET)

>	Is it okay to allow PF_UNSPEC to be passed as last arg to rcmd_af()?
I asked the list one week ago, no answer.
It seems the right thing to do, as in getaddrinfo.

Most on the command/library functions should work the same with INET or
INET6 correspondants, and leave to choice to dns functions.

-- 
Jean-Luc RICHIER ([email-masked]  [email-masked])
Laboratoire Logiciels, Systemes et Reseaux (LSR-IMAG)
IMAG-CAMPUS, BP 72, F-38402 St Martin d'Heres Cedex
Tel : +33 4 76 82 72 32 Fax : +33 4 76 82 72 87
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------