On Jan 04, Brian May wrote:
> Somewhere I got lost in this discussion.
You did not, he did.
> In that case, how can correct programs be broken if IPv6 is not supported?
> Surely it is just a matter of binding to IPv4 and ignoring the error that
> occurs when trying to bind to the IPv6 socket (or
Brian May writes:
> In that case, how can correct programs be broken if IPv6 is not
> supported? Surely it is just a matter of binding to IPv4 and ignoring
> the error that occurs when trying to bind to the IPv6 socket (or vice
> versa if IPv6 is supported but not IPv4)?
I don't believe that co
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > a) netstat garbling the addresses of connected endpoints
> > This is one of the reasons why bindv6only should be set.
>
> I'm not arguing about bindv6only. I'm only arguing programs should work
> without ipv6 loaded.
Somewhe
On Jan 03, "Bernhard R. Link" wrote:
> You can call bullshit whatever how often you want. That does not change
> that many people have had those problems and thus have ipv6 backlisted
> (or not even compiled in if they have their own kernels built) and
> programs not working with that are broken.
* Marco d'Itri [091230 10:37]:
> On Dec 30, "Bernhard R. Link" wrote:
>
> > > > I routinely blacklist the ipv6 module. There are far too many
> > > > programs breaking or doing stuff I do not want if it is loaded.
> I call bullshit on this.
You can call bullshit whatever how often you want. That
On Dec 30, "Bernhard R. Link" wrote:
> > > I routinely blacklist the ipv6 module. There are far too many
> > > programs breaking or doing stuff I do not want if it is loaded.
I call bullshit on this.
> a) netstat garbling the addresses of connected endpoints
This is one of the reasons why bindv
* Ben Hutchings [091229 19:26]:
> > I routinely blacklist the ipv6 module. There are far too many
> > programs breaking or doing stuff I do not want if it is loaded.
>
> I trust you have filed bugs on these applications?
No, on most I have not. I don't believe anyone only having ipv6 right
now so
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 18:37 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Hendrik Sattler [091226 18:48]:
> > > Does that mean your application only works if the kernel supports
> > > IPv6?
> >
> > Why would you want to disable basic IPv6 support?
>
> I routinely blacklist the ipv6 module. There are far too
* Hendrik Sattler [091226 18:48]:
> > Does that mean your application only works if the kernel supports
> > IPv6?
>
> Why would you want to disable basic IPv6 support?
I routinely blacklist the ipv6 module. There are far too many
programs breaking or doing stuff I do not want if it is loaded.
Ho
On 2009-12-26, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>> Does that mean your application only works if the kernel supports
>> IPv6?
> Why would you want to disable basic IPv6 support?
People opt to not have IPv6 support in the kernel because they don't need it,
they don't want accidentally get out through IPv6 j
Am Samstag 26 Dezember 2009 03:43:08 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > I have failures now with a client that cannot connect() to the IPv4
> > address but get an ENETUNREACH instead.
> > The application DOES set this socket option:
> > socke
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>
> I have failures now with a client that cannot connect() to the IPv4 address
> but get an ENETUNREACH instead.
> The application DOES set this socket option:
> socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
> setsockopt(3, SOL_IPV
Am Mittwoch 23 Dezember 2009 13:41:57 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Dec 23, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > 1. It obviously doesn't do this only on new installation but also on
> > upgrades.
>
> This is correct.
>
> > 2. You cite RFC3493 but your request (and action) obviously violates it:
>
> RFC3493
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 13:24:11 +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> I do:
> int v6only = 0;
> int fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
> setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, (void*)&v6only, sizeof(v6only));
> bind(fd, (struct sockaddr *) &my_sock, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6));
> listen(fd, 2);
Am Mittwoch 23 Dezember 2009 14:07:54 schrieb Jarek Kamiński:
> Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> > I have failures now with a client that cannot connect() to the IPv4
> > address but get an ENETUNREACH instead.
> > The application DOES set this socket option:
> > socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_S
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> Jarek Kamiński writes:
>
>> Yes. Following code actually works (runs with bindv6only enabled,
>> listens on [::]:1234 and accepts connection made to localhost:1234):
> I'm sure it works. But I wanted to note that "localhost" is somewhat
> ambigious.
Jarek Kamiński writes:
> Yes. Following code actually works (runs with bindv6only enabled,
> listens on [::]:1234 and accepts connection made to localhost:1234):
I'm sure it works. But I wanted to note that "localhost" is somewhat
ambigious. It may include ::1
ipv6-pppoe-1:~# grep localhos
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
>
> I have failures now with a client that cannot connect() to the IPv4 address
> but get an ENETUNREACH instead.
> The application DOES set this socket option:
> socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
^-- You meant
On Dec 23, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> 1. It obviously doesn't do this only on new installation but also on upgrades.
This is correct.
> 2. You cite RFC3493 but your request (and action) obviously violates it:
RFC3493 is informational.
> Did you ever test that "setting this option back to 0 by a p
Am Samstag 24 Oktober 2009 20:24:31 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> I propose that netbase will create on new installations a file in
> /etc/sysctl.d/ containing net.ipv6.bindv6only=1.
[...]
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3493#section-5.3
1. It obviously doesn't do this only on new installation but a
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 08:24:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> Applications can change the behaviour for their sockets using setsockopt
> and the IPV6_V6ONLY option[2], and many already do this to prevent the
> need of adjusting their configuration depending on how the system is
> configured.
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Oct 24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
>>> installations
>> Done, let's see what breaks. :-)
>
> All of Java, it seems [1]. I'm very surprised this breakage was known in
Eduard Bloch writes:
> #include
> * Marco d'Itri [Fri, Dec 11 2009, 12:23:36AM]:
>> There is no relevant standard that says what the default of IPV6_V6ONLY
>> should be. Currently what happens is that every OS except Linux and OS
>> X default to 1. An important point is that the kfreebsd ports
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Fri, Dec 11 2009, 12:23:36AM]:
> On Dec 10, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > Can you explain (or give pointers to an explanation) what the
> > argumentation here is? How does not adhering to relevant standards
> > simplify configuration?
> There is no relevant standard that
On Dec 10, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Can you explain (or give pointers to an explanation) what the
> argumentation here is? How does not adhering to relevant standards
> simplify configuration?
There is no relevant standard that says what the default of IPV6_V6ONLY
should be. Currently what happen
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 08:24:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
> installations, to simplify configuration and administration of systems
> using IPv6 and to make the system behaviour match the one of all other
> operating systems, which
On Dec 10, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> Marco, by making this change I assume you offer your personal help in dealing
> with its consequences? Please feel free to submit a fix to #560137, thanks in
> advance.
I provided the usual workaround, but the "correct" solution would be to
open two sockets.
BTW
> Done, let's see what breaks. :-)
vnc4server: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560137
Marco, by making this change I assume you offer your personal help in dealing
with its consequences? Please feel free to submit a fix to #560137, thanks in
advance.
--
With respect,
Roman
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
>> installations
> Done, let's see what breaks. :-)
All of Java, it seems [1]. I'm very surprised this breakage was known in
advan
On Oct 24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
> installations
Done, let's see what breaks. :-)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Oct 28, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> polipo and ircd-hybrid are the only ones that are problematic for me. I guess
> things have improved. Well, except for those daemons that are not listening on
> IPv6 at all of course...
ircds need custom configuration anyway, so this does not look like a
problem.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:05:51PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > Can you make a list? I do not think there is a significant number, I
> > only know about vmware.
>
> Well, last time I tried bindv6only=1 on a server running many listening
> daemons.
> Over half of them stopped working properly (
On Oct 25, Jarek Kami?ski wrote:
> I run this configuration on most of my systems and don't have many
> problems. There was some problem with apache, but it's now fixed. Also
> java is broken and my bug report got ignored by sun, but it should be
> easy patchable (preloading socket() and calling
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:00:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> And bindv6only=0 is also not RFC compliant. However, a *lot* of applications
>> that use listening sockets will not work correctly anymore when you change
>> the
>> default. So it probably is better to make it a release goal that app
On Oct 25, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is really the right solution. We did this a while back for INN and
> it's cleared up a bunch of complexity and weirdness. It would be nice if
> we could just get all the applications patched, although I suppose that's
> unrealistic.
This is why I would be s
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> Applications can change the behaviour for their sockets using setsockopt
> and the IPV6_V6ONLY option[2], and many already do this to prevent the
> need of adjusting their configuration depending on how the system is
> configured.
This is really the right so
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > And bindv6only=0 is also not RFC compliant. However, a *lot* of applications
> > that use listening sockets will not work correctly anymore when you change
> > the
> > default. So it probably is better to make it a release goal tha
On Oct 24, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> And bindv6only=0 is also not RFC compliant. However, a *lot* of applications
> that use listening sockets will not work correctly anymore when you change the
> default. So it probably is better to make it a release goal that applications
Can you make a list? I do
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 08:24:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
> installations, to simplify configuration and administration of systems
> using IPv6 and to make the system behaviour match the one of all other
> operating systems, whic
I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
installations, to simplify configuration and administration of systems
using IPv6 and to make the system behaviour match the one of all other
operating systems, which default to this or just do not provide a
choice.
When net.ipv6.bindv
40 matches
Mail list logo
