[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enhanced SIIT
I personally think that handling the three case:
a) normal v4 address
b) v4 mapped v6 address
c) v6 address
is more complex than handling the two cases:
a) normal v4 address
b) normal v6 address
Agree or not, harmful is the stance the world has taken.
Lamenting the past does not move us to faster adoption of IPv6.
We need an `adopt IPv6' movement... i.e. action.
On Thursday 18 October 2007 17:41:13 Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> > Do you not realize why IPv4 mapped addresses were a bad idea?
> >
> >
> > http://ipv6samurais.com/ipv6samurais/openbsd-audit/draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4ma
> >pped-api-harmful-01.txt
>
> I disagree. From my own experience the issues brought up in the above are
> simply not important for the majority of network applications which don't
> really care whether a connection is made by IPv4 or IPv6 nor for the
> majority of users who shouldn't have to know anything about the underlying
> network.
>
> I think Section 3.7 of the API has actually made it relatively easy for
> most developers to add IPv6 capability to various apps that were
> previously IPv4-only. If the recommendations in the above had been
> followed I think you'd actually see a slowdown in updates to various apps
> since developers would be forced to write/debug significantly more complex
> code.
>
> Antonio Querubin
> whois: AQ7-ARIN
--
Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net
_____________________________________________
| \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| "..in support of free software solutions." \ 250797 (FWD)
| \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt