On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
> > Not supporting 127.1 violates POLA. Me, I hate 127.1. But some people
> > expect it to work, and they have every right to.
>
> Now there is some discussion about it on ietf/ipng list, but
> not yet clear if future document allow it or not.
> If it does not become clear in this 1 or 2 days,
> I'll change getaddrinfo() and related functions to use
> inet_aton() for IPv4. (e.g. change it to allow 127.1)
>
> Because,
> -RFC2553 doesn't forbid it.
> -X/Open spec clearly require it.
>
> so it is standard conformant now.
>
> If standard documents would be updated to disallow it in the
> future, then we need to think of changing getaddrinfo()
> behaviour at that time.
>
Thanks all for looking into my query. I agree conformance is
important! There is also, for users, in which category I put myself,
the need for 'unity'. If it works in one tool, it should, IMHO, do so
also in another. If ping 10.10 works, it is confusing that ftp 10.10
(or lynx 10.10) does not. Telnet 10.10 or 127.1 does work still here,
however (uname: 4.0-CURRENT #0: Mon Feb 7 00:50:17 CET 2000).
--
Marc Schneiders
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://zelf.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
propro 5:16pm up 19:27, load average: 2.00 2.00 2.00
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
