Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
>         IPV6_V6ONLY and its default value was discussed in a design group for
>         2553bis.  many of the people there wore vendor hat, and they were
>         reluctant of changing the OS behavior, hence they refused to change.
>         some (including me) suggested the default value be "implementation
>         depenedent", but the editor of 2553bis ignored it.
> 
Politically, I'm not surprised.  After all, they made my opponent on 
this issue a member of the IESG some years back.  (Admittedly, I'd 
turned down nominations for various positions on the IESG, on the 
grounds that a not-independently-wealthy consultant cannot afford to 
devote most/all of his time.  Sun is big enough to support an IESG 
member or two, and that's a good thing.)

Anyway, IPV6_V6ONLY=1 obviates ngtrans, his long-term baby. 


>         btw, freebsd changed the value from "off" to "on" between
>         4.x to 5.x to secure itself from the possible vulnerabilities.
>         http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet6/in6_proto.c.diff?r1=1.17&r2=1.18
>         openbsd does not implement IPv4 mapped address behavior at all.
>         why netbsd has to make the backward change, i.e. secure behavior to
>         insecure behavior?  portable programs cope with the issue already
>         (since MS WinXP is basically "v6only=1").
> 
This I didn't know.  So, why is NetBSD going against the "rough 
consensus and running code"?
-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32