On 2016/05/17 15:01, Ted Unangst wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote: > > From the beginning we were promised that modifying a program to use > > IPv6 only required opening a 2nd socket using AF_INET6. Then the > > recipes grew, and grew and grew. It went astray. > > > > 10,000 programs don't follow the practice. If everyone has to follow > > this practice, then the practice is wrong. If basically noone follows > > the practice, then the practice is also wrong. > > I can't disagree with this.
Current real world is, if you have software which uses IP-based restrictions or configuration, on many OS you either set IPV6_V6ONLY so you only receive real v6 traffic on that socket, or you deal with expanding v4 to the v6-mapped format yourself because otherwise you don't have a clue what you're going to get from the kernel. Is this a change you want to rely on an OS packager to (know|remember) to make? Or a maintainer somewhere down the line to fix the patch rather than delete it when an update causes it to conflict?
