Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol

[der Mouse <[e-mail]>]

> I strongly object to the idea of application programmers dealing with
> NAT, IPv4 vs. IPv6 or source address selection for the eternity.

I object to their having to deal with those issues.  I also object to
their being prevented from dealing with them, even if only because of
diagnostic applications.

> Applications should not have to be "ported to IPv6".

Diagnostic applications aside, I mostly agree.

> They should work the same with both level-3 protocols (and, indeed,
> they do, in every language but C).

Oh, nonsense.  Not every non-C language encapsulates those details
sufficiently to keep applications away from them.  I've seen perl code,
for example, that does pack() and unpack() to construct memory blobs
equivalent to structs sockaddr_in (and which thus needs to be changed
to do likewise for sockaddr_in6, to be v6-ready).

> I also really doubt that the typical application programmer is able
> to do a better job than the kernel / libraries to, choose the source
> address or other level-3 features.

The typical application programmer, perhaps.  But there certainly are
application programmers cokmpetent to manage such details.

> Plus, IMHO, if someone must influence this selection, it should be
> the system and network administrator, not the application programmer.

Sometimes it has to be the application coder, as creator of the user's
proxy to the network.  Some applications are suitable for hiding the
network's complexity, true, but some aren't.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [e-mail]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B