On 14 June 2010 22:13, Adam Borowski <kilob...@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 <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktin3rqvqrwb1i-7btpkfd921s7-ljad4i669o...@mail.gmail.com