Hello hpa, On 02/14/2017 08:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Okay, let me chime in here.
That's great, thanks. > AI_ADDRCONFIG seems to be the Wrong Thing[TM]. > AI_PASSIVE seems to be the Right Thing[TM]. And you even seem to agree with me, that's still greater :-) > Part of the problem is that the fallback code for the case of > getaddrinfo() not being there is braindead, and of course the original > code used to use gethostbyname() directly. I already have a much better > fallback version of getaddrinfo() written which would let us make much > better use of the getaddrinfo() interface, Do you still care about platforms without getaddrinfo? This is even in POSIX.1-2001. The really right thing to do would be not use a single socket for ipv4 and another for ipv6, but just iterate over the result of getaddrinfo and open a socket for each addrinfo. But let's not do more than one thing at a time. > Now, what I want to know is why you are specifying the accept-all > address explicitly as 0.0.0.0 instead of an empty string. That's because that's the default of the Debian tftpd-hpa package. If you repeat your question about the Debian default, there (I think) the answer is: it's a relict that predates ipv6 support. OK, probably already back then '' would have worked. I can only guess about the reasons, maybe it conflicted with the maintainer scripts that ask for the default bind address during installation. Best regards Uwe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature