Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mango.he.net (mango.he.net [66.220.11.34]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g9NGAFuR020345 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:10:15 -0700 Received: from leachlap5328 (pool-151-203-61-117.bos.east.verizon.net [151.203.61.117]) by mango.he.net (8.8.6/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA13233; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:10:17 -0700 Message-ID: <01ed01c27aae$93693900$0506330a@leachlap5328> From: "Kyle C Quest" To: "Pekka Savola" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPV6_V6ONLY Support, v2 (is Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:09:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-archive-position: 912 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: kquest@unital.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev > > I'm just curious... what happened to the generic option, SO_ONEFAMILY, that > > would replace > > the need for IPV6_V6ONLY? > > This kind of thing is only applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 (and badly even > there), there is no use trying to generalize it -- the idea was discarded. > I see... Thanks for the info