Re: fuser and IPv6: Which way to go?

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>]

In article <[🔎] 20011016100342.A9952@eye-net.com.au> (at Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:03:42 +1000), csmall@eye-net.com.au (Craig Small) says:

> I know how to fix this, but it then leads to the question, which way is
> the correct way?  There are three possibilities:
>  - Combine IPv6 and IPv4 sockets together -n tcp finds both IPv4 and
>    IPv6 sockets but you cannot distinguish between the two.
>  - Make a new namespace for IPv6, this means -n tcp 22 fails but -n tcp6
>    22 will find sshd, -n tcp6 80 wont find apache.
>  - Combine them and also have separate flags, perhaps tcp6 and tcp4.
>  - Is there another way?

I prefer 

- Combine them and also have separate flags, perhaps tcp6 and tcp4.
  If you name tcp4 or tcp6, display only tcp over ipv4 or ipv6 respectively.

It is probably acceptable:

- Make a new namespace for IPv6, this means -n tcp 22 fails but -n tcp6
  22 will find sshd, -n tcp6 80 wont find apache.

I don't like:

- Combine IPv6 and IPv4 sockets together -n tcp finds both IPv4 and
  IPv6 sockets but you cannot distinguish between the two.


BTW, when our double-bind code become stable - recently re fixed some fatal
problem; code should be experienced more -, we will contribute to the
main stream; we may want to open two sockets on the "same" port.

--yoshfuji