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

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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] µÈÆ£±ÑÌÀ wrote:

> Hello.
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.53.0309151105180.18225@giskard.ing.unife.it> (at Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:52:06 +0200 (CEST)), Mauro Tortonesi <mtortonesi@ing.unife.it> says:
>
> > to support AI_ADDRCONFIG, USAGI project's libinet6 simply checks if the
> > system supports ipv4 or ipv6 by trying to create an AF_INET or AF_INET6
> > datagram socket. this is wrong, IMVHO, as the resolver should test for
> > ipv4 or ipv6 connectivity (e.g. by looking at the routing table) and not
> > for ipv4 or ipv6 support in the stack.
>
> We never look into routing table, but addresses.
> Well, the method to check non-link-local addresses are
> available may be wrong.
> I evetually chenge it to try to explore whole addresses
> on the node using rtnetlink ("routing socket" in BSD term).

why don't you check the routing table?


> > i don't know what's kame behaviour, but from what i've seen in:
> >
> > http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/lib/libinet6/Attic/getaddrinfo.c?rev=1.2
> >
> > it seems the KAME project's libinet6 does not support AI_ADDRCONFIG.
> > itojun, am i wrong?
>
> KAME supports AI_ADDRCONFIG (and USAGI's idea is from KAME's here).
> http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/kame/libinet6/getaddrinfo.c

thanks, it seems that i was looking in the wrong place.


> BTW, I'm not against IPv4-mapped addresses. :-)

tu quoque, brute... ;-)

-- 
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