James Carlson wrote:
<snip>
If you don't have any v4 addresses configured other than 127.0.0.1,
then you're as "pure IPv6" as I can imagine being useful. Such a
configuration will have no way to send or receive any IPv4 packets on
the wire.
I think you're talking about an academic exercise, and I'm not sure
why it'd be useful or what it would prove. As Sebastien Roy pointed
out, it's not supported, and you'd have to remove the loopback
interface manually at each boot. I suppose it's possible, but don't
be surprised if you end up with broken applications and strange
behavior.
Communication over 127.0.0.1 is effectively just an IPC. In order to
be pure IPv6, do we need to remove other IPCs such as AF_UNIX as well?
also the interactive installer refuses to continue if you don't specify
a correct ipv4 address. should this be considered a bug ?
Which installer would that be? I suspect you're referring to SXCE or
older. There's nobody working on that installer because it's due to
be replaced by OpenSolaris. You could file a bug, but it'll be
ignored and/or closed.
yes i am talking about SXCE's installer. i am using the latest build
available - 115.
I'd expected that, as that's the only installer I know of that has
such a question built into it. The installer you're using is
effectively dead, as is the distribution itself. The current work is
being done on the OpenSolaris distribution, which has a completely
different installer, and _no_ bugs or RFEs are being fixed in the old
installer. (Unless, of course, they happen to affect S10.)
You can always file a bug at bugs.opensolaris.org, but it almost
certainly won't change the installer's behavior.
hi Sebastien and James,
thanks for your comments. this has been quite usefully.
greetings,
Stoyan
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
