>On Feb 21, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm partly confused becuase, from where I'm sitting, a common
>> header followed by IPv4 or IPv6-specific portions seems cleaner and
>> more in our spirit of "doing things right".
>
>An even better way to do it would be one suggested by Matt Thomas --  
>IPv4 as a separate code base simply goes away, and instead takes the  
>mapped-address path through the IPv6 stack.

Yeah, but only if you're prepared to use AF_INET6's ipv4-mapped
addresses.  It's a non-starter for existing applications which create
PF_INET sockets and bind()/connect() them to PF_INET addresses.  Or
for people who want to comment out INET6 from their kernels.

Besides that .... sure, I guess.  But if we go that route, would we
have been better off going with the NRL stack in the first place?