On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 15:11:11 +0300, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote: > > I'd like to know if my current approach is acceptable for > > upstreaming > > In my opinion, yes, it is. > > > The solution I've implemented is to make tcp and udp IPv4 only, which > > is what it should be (for now, for compatibility reasons), otherwise > > this breaks too many programs expectations. > > Yes, it is reasonable. Thanks for working on this.
Cool, thanks. > > Then I changed tcp6 and udp6 to be v4mapped (with the assumption that > > any code prepared to handle IPv6 sockets should be able to handle dual > > stack ones), and added tcp6only and udp6only to be IPv6 only connections. > > This mimics the behaviour of other inetd implementations with IPv6 > > support, namely Solaris inetd. But you might prefer a different behaviour, > > for example the FreeBSD one of making tcp6/udp6 IPv6 only and adding > > tcp46/udp46 for IPv4 mapped addresses. > > I believe you've made the right choice: the `*6only' names are better. Yeah, that was also one of the main reason for choosing those. > Could you also update inetutils.texi? Yes, I'll send an updated patch. thanks, guillem
