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

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Francis, could you clarify how your local credo translates to how you'd 
   like to, for example, port applications to IPv6?
   
=> I replace all AF_INET by AF_INET6, gethostbyname() by getaddrinfo(),
gethostbyaddr() by getnameinfo(), etc. I use one socket at the
server side because I consider there is only one IP, in the API it
becomes IPv6 with IPv4 space injected (in the math meaning) into
the IPv6 space as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

   We're in the process of updating 
   draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt, and it seems like there 
   are about half a dozen (at least) ways to create IPv6 applications.

=> there are two ways:
 - consider that the two stacks are disjoined: the code is duplicated,
   there is a version for IPv6 and a version for IPv4.
 - consider that there is only one IP and use only the IPv6 representation
   of any IP address.

   The 
   different scenarios are quite complex.  Most of it seems to come from the 
   different ways how the mapped addresses could be used.
   
=> in fact the issue is more to use or not to use them.

   Could you try to clarify?
   
=> there is a zillion of messages about this in the archives...

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: a new idea: list a "to be v6fied application of the month" in order
to get IPv6 support in all common applications... I propose to begin
with OpenSSL which has no IPv6 support mainly because we didn't shout
down enough louder to get it (:-).