Re: <draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in answering, the mail got lost.

The draft has been practically on hold since Atlanta.  I wonder if others
feel this is a work item that's useful for the w.g. or not.  Comments
welcome.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Eva M. Castro wrote:
> 1) why applications using only IPv6 (IPv6_V6ONLY
> option) are not considered?

IPV6_V6ONLY is only applicable to a class of server applications, and is
not supported by all implementations.  So, the examples would get slightly
more complicated with it.  But still, I think that would be a useful 
addition to the draft.

> 2) why the PMTU discovery, which *should* be implemented
> in IPv6 nodes, is not mentioned? (it is not a requirement)
> I m not sure, but it could be possible to implement a PMTU
> discovery service at application level, so applications
> could adapt their data flow to get better performance.

I'm not aware of any applications doing this -- so I couldn't really 
recommend that at this point.  In some cases, this could be useful, but 
those seem so specialized I'm not sure that applications is the right 
place to worry about PMTUD, in general.
 
> Maybe, it would be a good idea to include, in the
> appendix section, a complete client/server example to
> show: address conversion functions, the way to
> know if the application is communicating using
> IPv4 or IPv6 protocol, etc

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, so you'll probably have to be more 
specific.

Some of those what I think you're referring to can be done with inet_pton,
which might use some example, though.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings