Re: (usagi-users 00308) Re: USAGI IPv6 patches

[horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar]

¡Hola!

> > 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)

Ok. :-)

> But you/me/itojun have to assure people writing api RFC for beginning.

> 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)

> > 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.

So, if we want to get what I consider a sane behaviour (although it's against
current RFCs) in linux we'd to work with the ipng people to get the ipv4
mapping declared optional...

Ok, i'll write a proposal to make that behaviour optional so we can go the
OBSD/MS way while being RFC complaint.

> Alexey

Thanks,
					HoraPe
---
Horacio J. Peña
horape@compendium.com.ar
horape@uninet.edu
bofh@puntoar.net.ar
horape@hcdn.gov.ar