Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 19:57, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> > it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> > IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
>
> Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
> record types ("A" versus "AAAA") in the DNS "database".
>
> And the "interoperation" if IPv4 and IPv6 is pretty much not happening,
> if you're talking about the compatability addresses. I won't get into
> all the reasons why.
>
> All that said, I'm not advocating separating (or not separating)
> IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I'm still undecided on the issue. I can see
> situations where I might want to store both together, but then again, I
> can see situations where I certainly wouldn't.
>
> Perhaps we should think about another example to try to illuminate this:
> what about storing ISO/OSI addresses in the same type as well? Isn't
> that just the same thing as storing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses together?
>
> cjs

That's because IPv6 is a completely new and different protocol from
IPv4. It has new address requirements and is completely distinct from
IPv4. For some reason, people can't wait to lump the two together.
Make no mistake about it, IPv4 and IPv6 share pretty much a name and
that's about it.

IPv6 has some provisions to help people migrate toward it (from IPv4),
however, IPv6 is a distinctly different protocol. It doesn't help the
confusion that many OS's try to confuse programmers by exposing a single
socket interface, etc. Simple fact remains, IPv6 is not IPv4.

Wish more people would remember this.

...sorry...that's my rant for today... ;)

Regards,

Greg

--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting