[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bindv6only once again

On 14 June 2010 22:13, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>> For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing
>> applications work without change.
> "without change"?  Except, you know, the whole conversion from gethostname()
> and friends to getaddrinfo()?  V4-mapped addresses won't show for you if you
> do nothing -- they're a part of the package for the new API.
> It's not an ugly hack, it is careful design aimed to make software protocol
> agnostic.  Without having to deal separately with every protocol, you get
> forward-compatibility to any other future protocol, be it IPv17, IPX (if
> someone bothers extending it), or any other private use development --
> without having to modify or even recompile any existing software.
> It also lets programs to bind a socket in one go without having to
> separately handle IPv4 and v6.

Ok, maybe I got something wrong in skimming of these arguments then.
It was my understanding that bindv6only=0 is IPv4 specific, so a
server only has to listen to one IPv6 socket and will always receive
IPv6 addresses even if it was an IPv4 client - this is done be
mangling the IPv4 address into a IPv6 address.

Where as you seem to be saying a server can create a socket that will
work with any protocol and is in no way specific to IPv4 or IPv6.
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>

Reply to: