Le 2014-05-02 04:13, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas a écrit : > I don't like AI_ADDRCONFIG. It's useless as specified, and making it > useful requires interpretations and deviations.
Can you justify this? Sounds to me like a blanket statement as it is. > My understanding is that its goal is to solve a real world problem, > as in avoiding useless and potentially harmful DNS requests. So why not > make it do that, and just that? Because I don't think the end goal is > preventing IPv6 link-local communication, or communication with ::1 or > "localhost", etc. I don't understand the above paragraph at all. Facts only please, and no hyperbole. What's the problem exactly? > -bit is set, IPv4 addresses will be returned only if an IPv4 address is > -configured on an interface, and IPv6 addresses will be returned only if an > IPv6 > -address is configured on an interface. > +bit is set, DNS requests for IPv4 addresses will be performed only if an > +IPv4 address is configured on an interface, and DNS requetsts for IPv6 > +addresses will be performed only if an IPv6 address is configured on an > +interface. Targeting only DNS is wrong. That's not at all what AI_ADDRCONFIG does. It is of no use to return an IPv6 address that you found in a non-DNS database if the host has no IPv6 address configured on its interfaces. But take the above with a grain of salt because I absolutely don't understand the problem you're trying to fix. Simon
