On 2014/04/23 08:09, Simon Perreault wrote:
> + else if (ifa->ifa_addr->sa_family == PF_INET6 &&
so... family is ipv6
> + !IN6_IS_ADDR_LOOPBACK(
> + &((struct sockaddr_in6 *)ifa->ifa_addr)
> + ->sin6_addr) &&
AND it's not a loopback address
> + !((ifa->ifa_flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) &&
> + IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL(
> + &((struct sockaddr_in6 *)ifa->ifa_addr)
> + ->sin6_addr)))
AND NOT (loopback interface AND link-local address)
But the intention seems to be "if you have a usable v6 address
that stands a chance of being routable" - so shouldn't this last bit
be "AND NOT loopback interface AND NOT link-local address"?
!(ifa->ifa_flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) && !(IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL(
&((struct sockaddr_in6 *)ifa->ifa_addr)))
Otherwise AI_ADDRCONFIG will still allow v6 addresses if you have a
default OpenBSD configuration i.e. the automatically configured
link-local address on an ethernet interface even if you've done nothing
to try and make them work.
I suspect it may not be quite RFC compliant, but I think actual usability
trumps RFC compliance here.
