Subject: Re: RFC1933 IPv4 mapped address
To: Bill Sommerfeld <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/21/1999 12:58:08
>I agree that the mapped addresses are problematic/ugly (and I'd be
>happy to weigh in on that side of the argument on an appropriate
>working group mailing list..).. but there's a higher-level issue
>here.. "Standard is better than better".
>Unless there's a *really* good reason for it, I think our stack should
>behave by default as specified.
I'm more worried about having this rfc1933 mapped addr hack forever
(or long time), in addition to security issue. I believe this is
not a good way to make applications dual-stack ready, since the spec
is not clear enough about gory details like behavior of setsockopt,
inpcb lookup ordering, and such things. The hack looks fine at a
first glance, but as you dig it deeper it has big trouble inside.
If many of *bsd do not support it in default binary, people will use
AF_INET/INET6 more properly when they port applications.
I'll of course try to convince ipngwg folks in (possible) 1933bis
discussion, in parallel.