Yo Jiri! On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:59:07 +0200 Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:32:54 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> > In keeping with the principla of least surprise, I would say go
> > with the flow and implement IPV6_V6ONLY.
>
> You could also argue that "least surprise" means to respect whatever
> the administrator set in the bindv6only sysctl. It's there for a
> reason and applications should respect the setting, unless they have
> a very good exceptional reason to do otherwise.
Of the tiny number of admins that know IPv6 listen can also bind IPv4, how
many of them know about bindv6only?
IMHO bindv6only is way too blunt a tool. Some things, like Icinga checks,
I do not want falling back to IPv4. Other things, like ntpd, can
benefit from the simplification it provides.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588
pgpDGV5mVtYYl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
