On 2010-06-17 12:55, David Conrad wrote: > Well, yes. However, applications already have to be modified to deal with IPv6. I'd agree that modifying applications from a simple synchronous path to dealing with parallel asynchronous connections would not be a good idea. Personally, I'm of the strong opinion that the socket() API is fundamentally broken as is the separation of naming lookup from connection initiation/address management. In the vast majority of cases, applications should not know or care what about anything but the destination name/service. As I understand it, new APIs are evolving towards something conceptually like > > connection_id = connect_by_name( hostname, service ) > > allowing the kernel to manage the address, expiration of the address, name to address mapping change, etc. transparently to the application. Exactly. One rule of thumb I've been following regarding migrating applications to IPv6 is to banish the use of struct sockaddr (and variants such as _in, _in6, _storage, etc.). If you never use that structure, your app is probably IPv6-ready, or very close to it. Simon -- NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf