Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
`struct addrinfo' contains a `struct sockaddr', which carries the
necessary scoping information (I think). The question at the time
was whether I could extract only the address(es) and ignore
everything else, as it was possible with IPv4. Itojune
Markus Buchhorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reading back, that was itojun's proposal, and I suspect probably a
good choice, even if it seems less clean. Itojun is one of the leading
lights in IPv6 development, along with the whole WIDE group in Japan,
and heavily involved in the v6 stacks for
Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd suggest that you instead pass around a 'struct hostent *' on
IPv4 only platforms
Why? The rest of the code never needs anything from `struct hostent'
except the list of addresses, and this is what my code extracts. By
extension, the idea was for
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
I'd suggest that you instead pass around a 'struct hostent *' on
IPv4 only platforms
Why? The rest of the code never needs anything from `struct hostent'
except the list of addresses, and this is what my code extracts.
Well, why extract the
Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
I'd suggest that you instead pass around a 'struct hostent *' on
IPv4 only platforms
Why? The rest of the code never needs anything from `struct hostent'
except the list of addresses, and this is what
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Well, why extract the addresses when you can just leave them in the
struct and pass a pointer to that?
Because I'm caching the result of the lookup, and making a deep copy of
`struct hostent' is not exactly easy. (Yes, I know libcurl does it, but
Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Well, why extract the addresses when you can just leave them in the
struct and pass a pointer to that?
Because I'm caching the result of the lookup, and making a deep
copy of `struct hostent' is not
Thomas Lussnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok first we don't need this difference. I think it's not so easy than
it first seem's.
Because IPv6 is an superset of IPv4 there is an representation fo IPv4
Adresses.
But is it desirable to use it in preference to native IPv4 calls?
I apologize if
Hi,
i have make an hopefull clean patch for IPv6 support.
It works fine (testet (compile and v6 retrive)
But im not already happy with it.
1. Now if IPv6 enabled it only fetch IPv6 IPv4 sites faile
2. Need an switch to change the preffered mode 4/6
3. Makefile optional v6 support
Point 1 i
Thomas Lussnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Now if IPv6 enabled it only fetch IPv6 IPv4 sites faile
This is a problem, and part of the reason why the patch is so simple
in its current form. A correct patch must modify struct address_list
to hold a list of IP addresses, each of which can be
At 03:16 AM 15/01/2002 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Thomas Lussnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Now if IPv6 enabled it only fetch IPv6 IPv4 sites faile
This is a problem, and part of the reason why the patch is so simple
in its current form.
[...]
Another possibility is to store struct
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
1. Now if IPv6 enabled it only fetch IPv6 IPv4 sites faile
This is a problem, and part of the reason why the patch is so simple in its
current form.
It is indeed. If done correctly, using the proper API, there won't be any
difference between IPv6
12 matches
Mail list logo
