On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 03:01, ext Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > I believe that keeping applications shim-unaware is a worthy goal. > > Some applications may want to inform the shim of their special needs. > But applications that don't have special needs shouldn't have to be > shim-aware, of course. Completely hiding shim6 from applications might be problematic, even though I agree that it would be a nice property. Applications should see ULIDs, right? (Where ULID could be one of the locators). This would change the semantics of those functions that handle addresses, such as getsockname() or bind()? Even if using one of the IP addresses as ULID, application gets an address that might end up to be different from the IP address that is actually used in the communication later on. This could break applications that have logic based on these addresses, such as those that pass the addresses to other hosts as a part of the application protocol message exchange. So I'm afraid that applications that want to take advantage of shim might need to use a different address family, at least. - Pasi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part