Hi, On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 06:46:50PM +0200, Frank Doepper wrote: > > Under normal conditions, neither should make any difference, but if this > > triggers a kernel bug, it might... > > Did you have a look at that kernel code? Maybe this will my first linux > kernel bug report?
I'm not a kernel coding guru. Last time I bumped into "this" (multihome not working for v4-mapped address on linux) I reported the effect to one of the ipv6 lists ... https://www.mail-archive.com/ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de/msg00959.html ... and magic happened... one of the kernel network maintainers picked up the ball, went looking, and replied "I see the problem and yes, this is unfortunate, I see" :-) - and then we had patches and things started working. > Is there a way to circumvent this (like binding to every address > separately, like bind9 and ntpd do)? Not today, unfortunately. Antonio was working on multiple listening sockets, but our code is old and complicated. Actually it was working for "multiple sockets of the same socket type" (udp+udp or tcp+tcp) but udp+tcp never worked, and the momentum got lost... udp+udp would help here ("bind to explicit v4 and explicit v6 address") 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-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
