Subject: RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:17:29 -0700

Jim Bound:
> we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I
suggested
> it) and no one on either side wanted that.  thinking was even if one
did
> not get their choice then its better to have default for the users.

Actually I suggested it as well, so I wouldn't have a problem with no
default.  Anyone who wants portable apps would just always set the
option, no problem.

-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:17:55 -0400 (EDT)

Yep I am still with you on this one but if it ever happen we have to
permit a transition.

I think the argument was now.  why do this to the programmer cause we
could not pick a default.

/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:50:58 +0200 (MEST)

> default.  Anyone who wants portable apps would just always set the

The benefit of changing the default would be that applications using
getaddrinfo could be more address independent.
With either the current default or an unspecified default those
applications need code to say
	if AF_INET6
		turn on IPv6_V6ONLY

  Erik

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:01:13 -0400 (EDT)

This is not a problem just a solution .....

/jim