On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 01:06:55PM -0500, der Mouse wrote: > Also, note that the application can get whichever set of semantics it > prefers by explicitly setting the V6ONLY option on the socket; My main point is that this is not the case. The V6ONLY socket option is not honoured by some widely-deployed Operating Systems. Although the situation is rapidly improving, I would argue that it is currently still worth accompanying a recommendation of using explicit AF sockets with the excellent recommendation from section 4 of the I-D; "In EVERY application, check for IPv4-mapped addresses wherever addresses enter code paths under your control (i.e., are returned from system calls, or from library calls, or are input from the user or a file), and handle them in an appropriate manner. This approach is difficult in reality, and there is no way to determine whether it has been followed fully." Proposing "do not accept IPv4 traffic by using AF_INET6 socket" without even a "where available" qualifier as a solution is unsuitable and unrealistic. It is a simple fact of life that current application developers have to live with the fact that some OS's do not support this behaviour. -- colmmacc@redbrick.dcu.ie PubKey: colmmacc+pgp@redbrick.dcu.ie Web: http://devnull.redbrick.dcu.ie/
