On Feb 21, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> 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.

Uh... no.  Regular PF_INET would still work -- the presentation to  
the application at the socket layer would be the same as regular  
IPv4, but there would only be one code path through the IP complex  
itself.

> 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?

There's not really much point in rehashing that.  Focus on making the  
changes necessary to move us forward.

-- thorpej