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

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On vrijdag, sep 12, 2003, at 14:11 Europe/Amsterdam, Mauro Tortonesi 
wrote:

> > So what's the alternative? Ripping mapped addresses out of current
> > implementations doesn't make sense for many reasons.

> sure, but we could deprecate usage of ipv4-mapped addresses.

First of all, how does this make a difference in the world?

Second: you don't make the case for "harmful", only for "of little 
use". There is no need to go through all kinds of trouble to warn 
people something is hard to use.

> > If you feel using the IPv6 socket API for IPv6 and the IPv4 socket API
> > for IPv4 makes more sense, then by all means, do it that way. 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. Obviously this means you can't do 
> > any
> > IPv6-specific stuff.

> this could be a plus only for for very simple apps where the developers
> don't care for portability or robustness.

If you want to be able to write portable applications, why don't you 
talk to the OS builders?