Re: IPV4 to IPv6 migration

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============0092044855==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="------------enigA638F749D6145A77859D3C9A"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA638F749D6145A77859D3C9A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> It's a bit sad that we didn't take the opportunity to define a new =20
>>> API  that would return 'network handles'
>> SCTP & HIP. Please look at these.
>=20
> This still requires applications to be far too aware of what's =20
> underneath them.  Sort of like requiring applications to know SCSI =20
> protocol commands or disk geometry in order to write out data.

No they don't. Just open a socket() of IPPROTO_SCTP and get going, just=20
like TCP. You miss out on all kinds of cool features of SCTP like=20
multiple streams in one SCTP connection, but who cares about that.

Another nice problem here is that for people who correct programmed=20
their code using the getaddrinfo() loop, SCTP won't be returned when=20
asking for STREAM sockets because getaddrinfo() doesn't support it.
Then again, afaik there is no SCTP for MacOSX nor for Windows which is=20
easily available thus that also blocks quite a bit.

Then again, quite some years ago there was no IPv6 anywhere, there is=20
quite some of it now though, people just have to see the light(tm).

>> Now the big problem is, how do you get programmers to start adding =20
>> SCTP and/or HIP support to all their programs...
>=20
> And how do you get CPE router vendors to support them and firewall =20
> administrators to allow them through, etc.

CPE "routers" should not care about it, if they are really routers they=20
just route IP and nothing else. If you mean NAT boxes, well those should =

have died a horrible death ages ago, fortunately there is not supposed=20
to be NAT in IPv6, people who NAT anyway should follow those NAT boxes.

Firewalls are indeed always a funny thing, they are the main culprit for =

not being able to do end2end as one would assume.

Greets,
  Jeroen


--------------enigA638F749D6145A77859D3C9A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIRVnSKaooUjM+fCMRApTcAJ9EHerpD1aUPo1n9Ins8csWL1plKQCfcqzO
vdMc8E3vjPFtF7FFeS/wXQY=
=CtGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigA638F749D6145A77859D3C9A--

--===============0092044855==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

--===============0092044855==--