> >	no, i objected of passing struct in6pcb * as the argument, i suggested
> >	struct socket * as explicit argument.  why did you commit it ignoring
> >	my comment?  i'll change them to pass struct socket *.
> And I replied that such a change would need a consensus with Sam
> Leffer. To do what you want we would also have to change fast-ipsec to
> accept a struct socket* rather than the struct inpcb* it is passed
> now.  I also said that we will revisit the inpcb*/inpcb6* issue, after
> hooks to fit into fast-ipsec existed for review, and both approaches
> could be compard.

	freebsd uses unified inpcb for IPv4 and IPv6.   netbsd uses separate
	inpcb/in6pcb.  therefore code has to be different.
	i thought about unification of inpcb/in6pcb for a long time, but
	end up not doing it due to increased memory usage/too many changes
	(i would name common portion as inpcb and IPv4-only portion in4pcb,
	hence many IPv4 code has to be changed).

> Can you please defer chagne the inpcb6* to an struct socket*, until
> after that review?

	sorry no, i will change it to struct socket * now.  with your commit
	you *broke* KAME IPsec policy checking for the case where IPv4 mapped
	address is used on AF_INET6 socket.  i need to fix it now.

itojun