[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-1661?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17576399#comment-17576399
]
Song Ziyang edited comment on RATIS-1661 at 8/7/22 3:00 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------
[~szetszwo] I think the IPv6 RATIS-1659 issue roots in:
RaftPeer accepts an _address_ (type String) as its communicating endpoint.
Users usually will use pattern +host:port+ to construct this _address._
+host:port+ works fine for IPv4 address like 0.0.0.0:80, but won't work under
IPv6 address (::1:80 is invalid, [::1]:80 is correct under this situation).
So we can:
# Remain current code unchanged, forces users to pass correctly-formed address
to RaftPeer.
# Refactor RaftPeer to ask users to pass host & port explicitly instead
_address_ (type String).
Which resolution should we choose?
was (Author: JIRAUSER281912):
[~szetszwo] I think the IPv6 RATIS-1659 issue roots in:
RaftPeer accept an _address_ (type String) as its communicating endpoint. Users
usually will use patter +host:port+ to construct this _address._
+host:port+ works fine for IPv4 address like 0.0.0.0:80, but won't work under
IPv6 address (::1:80 is invalid, [::1]:80 is correct under this situation).
So we can:
# Remain current code unchanged, forces users to pass correctly-formed address
to RaftPeer.
# Refactor RaftPeer to ask users to pass host & port explicitly instead
_address_ (type String).
Which resolution should we choose?
> Use configurable IP address to replace 0.0.0.0 in GrpcService
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: RATIS-1661
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-1661
> Project: Ratis
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: gRPC
> Reporter: Song Ziyang
> Assignee: Song Ziyang
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
