If it doesn't make sense to your guys, it is probably not a way to go then.
Thanks Fong -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fong Tsui Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 transport vs IPv4 access control Fong, I think the use cases should be clearly defined, and tests for them produced, before the Net-SNMP project can consider changes to transport where routing is a concern. What platform OS are you using ? Not all platforms support a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 and produce the same expectation. What routing mechanisms do you use ? If the agent is started using only IPv6 transport, why should the IPv4 access control be used ? e.g., it makes no sense to me to have IPv6 transport mix with IPv4 access control. Perhaps I'm not reading everything intended in the communication which was received ? -Mike S. > > From: Robert Story (Coders) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/08/22 Sun PM 11:08:19 EDT > To: "Fong Tsui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 transport vs IPv4 access control > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:49:34 -0700 Fong wrote: > FT> Currently if snmpd agent is launched on IPv6 transport, both IPv6 > FT> and IPv4 addresses can access it. However, access control in > FT> snmpd.conf distinguishes between IPv6 (eg. rwcommunity6) and > FT> IPv4(eg. rwcommunity). If snmpd is launched IPv6, for IPv4 access, > FT> access control needs to be defined in IPv6 format, which is > FT> rwcommunity6 ::ffff:x.x.x.x. > > Interesting... so if snmpd is started with udp6, it will receive > packets addressed to an IPv4 address (a.b.c.d)? Or just an IPv6 format > IPv4 address (::fff:a.b.c)? > > FT> To me, if it is accessible for both IPv4 and IPv6, for IPv4, it > FT> should look IPv4's access control(rwcommunity). > > It is certainly debatable. We'll have to wait and see what the > everyone else thinks. > > FT> Attached are changes for making IPv4 to read IPv4 access control. > > FT> Also set SO_REUSEADDR for socket bind. > > This should be disabled by default, as it is in the ipv4 udp > transport. > > -- > Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> > <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> > Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> > > You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media > 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save > 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. > http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 > _______________________________________________ > Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
