On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 13:32 -0800, Baker Fred wrote: >On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> the only thing an application should depend on here is that it >> supports IPv6 addresses > >If I could make a humble request here... > >Could we please manage to avoid the worst of the layering faults we >committed in the IPv4 Internet? The thing that has made NAT hard and >made applications break crossing a NAT was that the applications know >something about addresses. Let's not do that with IPv6 applications. > >Applications should know about names and APIs, period. They should open >a socket-or-whatever to a name, and accept that the service underneath >gets them to an instantiation of it. Full ack, please cast it in gold. Applications should of course use getaddrinfo(), inet_ntop() and inet_pton() where needed. I am one of the strong proponents of it and usually refer folks who ask how to support IPv6 to Eva Castro's document: http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html Or Itojun's paper at: http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ With the above I only meant that the app should minimaly be able to do IPv6 addresses, with IPv4 most likely not supporting shim6 for this setup. And as a consequence of 'app supporting IPv6' I also mean that they should be using getaddrinfo(). <SNIP> >But please-please-please can we have the applications treat that as an >opaque character string that could just as easily contain directions to >the donut store? I fully agree, give me donuts be they IPv4 or IPv6 or IPv9 ;) Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part