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

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 15:40:42 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => you can use it with the V6ONLY stuff.
   
   yes, but on rfc2553-compliant system you cannot have both an AF_INET
   and an AF_INET6 socket listening on the same port.
   
=> you can do it with the V6ONLY stuff. (again)

   > => this is the standard way but with the V6ONLY way you can use the
   > single socket (my favorite) or the socket per IP version (Itojun's
   > favorite). The user shall choice his own favorite or the one which
   > matches the application constraints.
   
   the user can't choose anything! if he wants to listen both ipv4 and ipv6
   traffic, he has to use an AF_INET6 socket with V6ONLY turned off.
   no other choice.
   
=> no, he can use one socket for both versions or two sockets, one per
version, with V6ONLY turned on. The V6ONLY stuff was specified in order
to enable that (because BIND 9 needs that for its filtering).

[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: Mauro Tortonesi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:31:28 +0200 (CEST)

> => you can do it with the V6ONLY stuff. (again)

only if your implementation allows you to do so.

> to enable that (because BIND 9 needs that for its filtering).

only if your implementation allows you to do so.

-- 
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...

Mauro Tortonesi			[email-masked]
Ferrara Linux User Group	http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Project6 - IPv6 for Linux	http://project6.ferrara.linux.it

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 00:31:44 +0900

>=> you can do it with the V6ONLY stuff. (again)

	again, there's no explicit text about this issue.  i believe you are
	assuming a couple of things beyond documented, like when bind(2) should
	fail (it is also not documented).

itojun