On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think so - Gavin? As far as I'm aware there's not really anything else
on the open source circuit. There is often a MySQL rep there as well
apparently.
Chris is right. David Axmark (MySQL AB) usually turns up, but he didn't
this year.
Is Linux.conf.au the event PostgreSQL should use for coverage in
Australia next year?
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Linux.conf.au Report
The Linux.conf.au is an international Linux/Open Source
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
connections. I also want to be able to say the same thing in my database.
You just
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
connections. I also want to be able to say the same thing
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
connections. I also want to be able to
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
should be a configuration variable:
tcpip_socket = true
ipv6 = true
We had a huge discussion on this. I think you were away for it. You
can control what
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
I think I was the one who talked us into assuming that ipv4 and ipv6
should be treated as a single protocol. But some people have since made
pretty good cases that it's better to regard them as separate protocols.
From a security standpoint, I think it's
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
should be a configuration variable:
tcpip_socket = true
ipv6 = true
We had a huge
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[virtual_host] currently only seems to support 1 address, and I don't really
know why. Is there a reason you can't make this a list of
hostnames/ip addresses?
That was what the boys at uu.net needed, so that's what they
implemented. If you need more, I
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
should be a configuration variable:
tcpip_socket = true
ipv6 = true
We had a huge discussion on this. I think you were away for it.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
It's a good things that the socket interface can actually work
with all protocol! It doesn't only work with AF_INET, but also
AF_UNIX, and probably others. It's a good things that things
like socket(), bind(), connect() don't need to be replaced by
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:57:17AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
record types (A versus ) in the DNS database.
And the interoperation if IPv4 and IPv6 is pretty much not happening,
if you're talking about the
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Soon, the NAT + CIDR bag-on-the-side will run out of room, and people
will have no choice but to use IPv6. But the pain of making them
interoperate is part of the cause of resistance. The compatibility
addresses are going to
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:21:09PM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
IPv6 has some provisions to help people migrate toward it (from IPv4),
however, IPv6 is a distinctly different protocol.
The ipv4 mapped ipv6 addresses are to help migrate, but it
actually makes things worse. If this wouldn't be
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:13:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We have to work out what the semantics should be. I don't know anything
about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 13:04, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:21:09PM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
It doesn't help the
confusion that many OS's try to confuse programmers by exposing a single
socket interface, etc. Simple fact remains, IPv6 is not IPv4.
It's a good things
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:21:21PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
What do you mean with compatibility addresses? I don't know of
any such thing.
I'm thinking of these sorts of things (my faviourite description,
from RFC 2893):
IPv6/IPv4 nodes that perform automatic tunneling are assigned
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
But the pain of making them
interoperate is part of the cause of resistance. The compatibility
addresses are going to _have_ to work if people are really going to
move...
There is no pain in this respect; you get your compatability by simply
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
doing
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same
Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
I would assume we'd add a test function like is_v6(inet). Given that,
you could add a check constraint is_v6(col) or NOT is_v6(col) to
any
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't see the argument for that. (It'd have to be an argument that
doesn't just establish a scenario where you'd want that, but proves
that we should force that point of view upon every application using
IP addresses.)
Given that
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same data type?
We have to work out what the semantics
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't know anything
about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
address space ...
No, they do not. The address spaces are completely independent. (There
is a compatability space for IPv4 addresses, but it turned out to be
[ pgsql-advocacy trimmed from cc list; seems off-topic for them ]
D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be
Linux.conf.au Report
The Linux.conf.au is an international Linux/Open Source event that attracts
lots of international speakers. Total conf attendance was around 360, maybe
even 400 I think.
Gavin Sherry was speaking at this particular conf, and I attended as a
hobbyist.
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linux.conf.au Report
[ much snipped ]
* IPV6 data types
- Apparently there are some ISPs in some countries that have started to bill
people for IPV6 bandwidth, and the lack of IPV6 address types is hurting
them.
Yeah. This is a pretty
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
doing otherwise?
regards, tom
31 matches
Mail list logo
