Re: draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt and draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-01.txt

[Mauro Tortonesi <mtortonesi@ing.unife.it>]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:19:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > But for simple applications I think it's a huge plus to be able to talk
> > to the network in a unified way without having to spend time and effort
> > on making the IPv4/IPv6 distinction.
>
> I do not know where you make the distinction between a simple
> application and a complex one. My experience is that the behaviour
> of mapped addresses seems to be different from box to box and the
> real pain I had was _portability_ and not the complexity of the
> application. And this portability pain was in my case much bigger
> than writing proper code that can handle IPv4/IPv6 addresses
> natively.

yes. please take a look at my oftpd ipv6 port:

http://cvs.deepspace6.net/view/oftpd/

especially src/ftp_listener.c and src/af_portability.c. i think that at
the moment this is the only way to properly handle ipv4_mapped addresses
(and, in general, both ipv6 and ipv4 connectivity) on both systems with
IPv6_V6ONLY support and systems with no IPv6_V6ONLY support.


-- 
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...

Mauro Tortonesi                 mtortonesi@ing.unife.it
                                mauro@deepspace6.net
                                mauro@ferrara.linux.it
Deep Space 6 - IPv6 with Linux  http://www.deepspace6.net
Ferrara Linux User Group        http://www.ferrara.linux.it