---
>http://paradise.kame.net/v6proxy/diana2/shin/work/freebsd/tcp-apps.20000114
>http://www.FreeBSD.org/~shin/tcp-apps.20000114
>
>They includes,
> -inetd
> -libutil
> -rlogin
> -rlogind
> -rshd
> -telnetd
>
>As far as I checked, those apps seems to be working over both
>IPv4 and IPv6.
Sorry for delayed response, and sorry for doing this here
(I should have talked about this in KAME team earlier, I think I have
noted about rcmd API issues already to shin, before freebsd IPv6
commits start)
I suggest to defer committing rsh/rlogin related items, as there
are reference to libc functions which we do not have consensus even
among *BSD (not to mention linux camp, or any of vendor UN*X which may
have those interfaces) IMHO committing them causes more confusion.
We do not really use rlogin/rsh these days, we can just use ssh.
For realhostname2() I have no opinion as is freebsd only API
(as I heard from shin).
rcmd and bindresvport items are already committed, I think they
shouldn't have been committed.... (for openssh port you can include
bindresvport_af in "patches" directory)
I would propose to back these out, like iruserok_af and bindresvport_af
from the library.
Items that would be deferred are rsh and rlogin related items, and
those only (I believe). most of other IPv6 services can be put
and enabled.
What I'm trying to say is that we need to get consensus on these API
functions amoung at least *BSDs, and we should not be putting those
before that. I'm soliciting comments on IETF ipngwg mailing list
so that I can get more comments.
itojun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
