Re: (usagi-users 00308) Re: USAGI IPv6 patches
Hello!
> I -as an application programmer- should not know if i'm using IPv4,
> IPv6, IPv9, IPX++++, CLNP or DECnet Phase X.
Listen, you are right _of_ _course_. I am not going to argue
to the statement which I advocated for six years (or more? since early 2.1)
8)8)
But you/me/itojun have to assure people writing api RFC for beginning.
> Normal way to code AF independent servers is: (taken from itojun's
> http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/)
Agreed.
But as soon as world is still not a full paradise, you have to do protocol
specific tunings. Sorry. Probably, you could parse 6 year old maillists, when
it was still possible to drop this bogus transition mechanism.
I was alone that time and shredded to pieces, even R.Stevens participated
in the execution. 8)8)
> Everywhere
Everywhere is openbsd.
NT does this only because their core does not allow to share ports
in RFC compliant way.
All the rest are buggy and we are not allowed to introduce bugs
deliberately.
> opinion) I prefer that buggy behaviour to the right one
Pardon, this is the place where we diverge crucially.
> code. And I prefer the non RFC complaint, non buggy openbsd/MS behaviour
> to the buggy one.
I am too.
But we have to follow directives of RFCs yet. We are not insurgents. 8)
And you, pretending to be application programmer, have no choice
but following them too, just not to look like an insurgent.
Alexey
Reply to: