FreeBSD 5.0 dual-stack server

[Hajimu UMEMOTO]

Hi,

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:11:24 -0700
>>>>> "Jeff W. Boote" <boote at internet2.edu> said:

boote> Hmm. So the trade-off is calling select or using IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED?

Yes.

boote> (My applications need to understand the addresses at a pretty detailed
boote> level anyway - I'll probably stick to the dual-stack method.)

What do you mean the dual-stack method, here?  If you mean that you
want to format IP address to string form, you can use getnameinfo()
for this purpose.  getnameinfo() is address family independent
function.

boote> This seems to contradict the recommendation in RFC 3493 (which I realize
boote> is only informational)... I've been doing a web search to try and find
boote> some kind of record for the rational used for making this default to
boote> v6only. I haven't found anything substantial yet. Does anyone on this
boote> list know why? (I'm guessing there must be a good reason - and if so, I
boote> want to make sure I'm dealing with those issues in my applications.)

Yes, this breakage against RFC2553/3493 is intentional.  Please refer:

	draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt

Sincerely,

--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume at mahoroba.org  ume at bisd.hitachi.co.jp  ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/