Hi, On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 09:47:37AM +1000, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > + /* we only print port numbers for v4mapped v6 as of > > + * today, because "v6addr:port" is too ambiguous > > + */ > > The comments above are indented with tab+spaces, while the code below is > just all spaces. Please use the all spaces everywhere.
Gah. That was the intention, but the comment was added later on and
using the wrong editor :-)
> > + if (maddr.type & MR_WITH_PORT)
> > + {
> > + buf_printf(&out, ":%d", ntohs(maddr.v6.port));
> > + }
>
> I don't understand how is this solving the ambiguity?
These are *v4* addresses, just masquerading as v6 in the socket structure.
So 1.2.3.4:567 is never ambiguous.
For "true v6 addresses" (the other branch) we keep on not printing the
port number.
> Or you are just
> saying: "we can't do much, let's just print the port anyway"? My
> suggestion would be to surround the address with [], so basically change
> the printf format above from %s to [%s]. Does it make sense?
This is something I want to discuss. Changing mroute_print_addr_ex()
for "true v6 addresses" and printing the port number in a new format
will affect status file printing, management interface, etc. - so it
needs to be well considered.
*This* patch just fixes the discrepancy that v4 addresses are printed
"with port" if doing "proto udp4", and "without port" if a v4 connect
comes in on a "proto udp / v6only=no" socket. (We do not need to discuss
how many problems the v4mapped v6 address format brings with it...)
gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
