Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Feb 2003 13:17:44 +0200

On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 13:13, Pekka Savola wrote:
> IMO, we should just say "IPv6 addresses" (the critical thing here is the
> size of the address -- no checks are done to validate them!), and nothing
> about mapped addresses.
> 
> If some want to push mapped addresses in there, that's fine by me -- if 
> your DNS resolver supports mapped addresses in /etc/resolv.conf (or 
> equivalent).
> 
> No special code/text, is my opinion!

That's good. I agree.

	MikaL

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 04:54:00 -0800 (PST)

regarding the use of mapped addresses:

draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt

might be a useful ID to review before committing this draft to the
stds process.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Feb 2003 15:25:31 +0200

[Topic changed. If you respond to this, please drop unrelated mailing
lists.]

> might be a useful ID to review before committing this draft to the

These issues are completely unrelated. The API issues are real but they
are not something that can or should be considered in a protocol
specification.

[Sorry for the off-topicness of the following]

I'm not too happy about RFC2553 myself in this respect, and I strongly
support the "Alternative solution" (fully specify IPv4-mapped behaviour)
in the above mentioned draft.

I can attest from implementation experience that it is possible to
create a hybrid IPv4/IPv6 stack implementation that uses around 80-90%
shared code between IPv4 and IPv6. All IPv4 addresses are handled in
IPv4-mapped format internally inside the stack.

Our sockets API is (mostly) version agnostic. Most applications are not
even aware which IP version they are using. The OS is not a unix
derivative and did not have the legacy baggage of the BSD style sockets
API. The API that was already defined for IPv4 yielded very easily to
support IPv6.

	MikaL