Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
:
6342561 is also related to this; see
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2010-April/008866.html
Yes, it seems to be the same issue although 6342561 it seems to have
been submitted to a java_plugin category for some reason. We've always
assumed
Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 9 August 2010 16:12, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alan,
Don't assume sockets will default to dual stack, explicitly set IPV6_V6ONLY
to 0. Apparently some Linux distros ship with net.ipv6.bindv6only=1
restricting sending and receiving to IPv6 packets only. Changes both n
On 9 August 2010 16:12, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Don't assume sockets will default to dual stack, explicitly set IPV6_V6ONLY
> to 0. Apparently some Linux distros ship with net.ipv6.bindv6only=1
> restricting sending and receiving to IPv6 packets only. Changes both net and
> nio code.
>
>
Alan Bateman wrote:
Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alan,
Don't assume sockets will default to dual stack, explicitly set
IPV6_V6ONLY to 0. Apparently some Linux distros ship with
net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 restricting sending and receiving to IPv6
packets only. Changes both net and nio code.
Webrev:
ht
Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alan,
Don't assume sockets will default to dual stack, explicitly set
IPV6_V6ONLY to 0. Apparently some Linux distros ship with
net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 restricting sending and receiving to IPv6
packets only. Changes both net and nio code.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.
Alan,
Don't assume sockets will default to dual stack, explicitly set
IPV6_V6ONLY to 0. Apparently some Linux distros ship with
net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 restricting sending and receiving to IPv6 packets
only. Changes both net and nio code.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/6882910/we
