Le 2014-04-23 11:43, Stuart Henderson a écrit : > 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.
Yes, you're right, I over-thought things here. Will send an updated diff later today. Thanks a lot for your thorough review! Simon
