>> "Everybody does it" is an argumentum ad populum. It's not right
>> because all systems do this. All systems do this because some RFC
>> told them to and apparently nobody considered the downsides (or they
>> dismissed them).
>>
>> I'm arguing it should be different since it is unexpected behav
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:03:30AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> | > I'm not referring to SLAAC. I'm referring to addresses that are
> | > configured on interfaces without the user even requesting them.
> | > link-local ad
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:29:11PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
| > > Anyway, I believe at least -inet6 is a better default than the current
| > > situation.
| > -inet6 as the default seems more OpenBSD'ish to me. Everything off
| > that can be off, but not more.
|
| there is way more to it than "
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
| > I'm not referring to SLAAC. I'm referring to addresses that are
| > configured on interfaces without the user even requesting them.
| > link-local addresses, specifically.
|
| I was actually answering your question abou
* Kenneth Westerback [2014-05-02 22:14]:
> On 2 May 2014 16:08, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> > Well, I think -inet6 would be a good default, but I think there's more
> > to it. Enabling net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv should still get me a
> > link-local address (and, if router advertisements are present o
Henning Brauer writes:
> * Paul de Weerd [2014-05-02 21:20]:
>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> [connectivity via link-local]
>> | Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always
>> | worked but I shouldn't expect them to work...
>>
Paul de Weerd writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> | > | What's a regular OpenBSD host with no IPv6? I'd assume that it is
> | > | a host that can perform IPv6 connections to ::1 / localhost and reach
> | > | its neighbors through link-local addre
On 2 May 2014 16:25, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Kenneth Westerback
> wrote:
>>
>> -inet6 as the default seems more OpenBSD'ish to me. Everything off
>> that can be off, but not more.
>
>
> "That is not off which can eternal lie,
> And with strange aeons even inet4 ma
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
>
> -inet6 as the default seems more OpenBSD'ish to me. Everything off
> that can be off, but not more.
>
"That is not off which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even inet4 may die."
On 2 May 2014 16:08, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> | * Paul de Weerd [2014-05-02 21:20]:
> | > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> | [connectivity via link-local]
> | > | Not really, I'm puzzled by
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
| * Paul de Weerd [2014-05-02 21:20]:
| > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
| [connectivity via link-local]
| > | Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always
| > | worked
* Paul de Weerd [2014-05-02 21:20]:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
[connectivity via link-local]
> | Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always
> | worked but I shouldn't expect them to work...
> I'm puzzled by the fact it has al
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
| > | What's a regular OpenBSD host with no IPv6? I'd assume that it is
| > | a host that can perform IPv6 connections to ::1 / localhost and reach
| > | its neighbors through link-local addresses.
| >
| > Why would you expe
ormation:
> - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Networking/NameResolution/ADDRCONFIG
> - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2553 obsolete and also informational,
> specified AI_ADDRCONFIG for DNS () purposes only (dunno why this
> has
As somone who has paid out of his own pocket for ARIN access to
allocate v6 space for things, I can assure you I am not anti-v6.
What I am is
anti-I-am-a-v6-zealot-and-submit-diffs-with-no-thought-to-how-everyone-but-my-own-setup-works-and-because-I-am-a-zealot-I-am-right-until-proven-wrong.
No.
On 2 May 2014 13:24, Bob Beck wrote:
> Honestly folks, I'm sick of the attitude of "The future is nigh, the
> mystic portal awaits! V6 is coming!" as an excuse for
> we *MUST* change things related to this.
>
> We've been hearing the mystic portal awaits for 15 years - and yet
> MANY of us in MANY
Honestly folks, I'm sick of the attitude of "The future is nigh, the
mystic portal awaits! V6 is coming!" as an excuse for
we *MUST* change things related to this.
We've been hearing the mystic portal awaits for 15 years - and yet
MANY of us in MANY parts of the world still can not
get reasonable
oraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2553 obsolete and also informational,
specified AI_ADDRCONFIG for DNS () purposes only (dunno why this
has been changed)
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
Paul de Weerd writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> | > If you're running on a host without IPv6, why would you want
> | > getaddrinfo() to return any IPv6 results? What good would it do to you?
> |
> | What's a regular OpenBSD host with no IPv6?
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
| > If you're running on a host without IPv6, why would you want
| > getaddrinfo() to return any IPv6 results? What good would it do to you?
|
| What's a regular OpenBSD host with no IPv6? I'd assume that it is
| a host tha
;
>> Le 2014-05-02 10:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas a écrit :
>>> Let's say you have a machine with no IPv6 address configured (or rather,
>>> only link-local addresses configured and ::1 on lo0). With the
>>> AI_ADDRCONFIG flag (either set explicitely
Simon Perreault writes:
> Le 2014-05-02 10:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas a écrit :
>> Let's say you have a machine with no IPv6 address configured (or rather,
>> only link-local addresses configured and ::1 on lo0). With the
>> AI_ADDRCONFIG flag (either set explicitel
Le 2014-05-02 10:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas a écrit :
> Let's say you have a machine with no IPv6 address configured (or rather,
> only link-local addresses configured and ::1 on lo0). With the
> AI_ADDRCONFIG flag (either set explicitely or assumed if the caller
> passes n
Simon Perreault writes:
> 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 state
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 i
Hi,
I don't like AI_ADDRCONFIG. It's useless as specified, and making it
useful requires interpretations and deviations.
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
2014 17:36:39 -
@@ -167,9 +167,11 @@ extern int h_errno;
#define AI_EXT 8 /* enable non-portable extensions */
#define AI_NUMERICSERV 16 /* don't ever try servname lookup */
#define AI_FQDN32 /* return the FQDN that was resolved */
+#define
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
dn'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 OpenB
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:09:06AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> (I sent this diff to ??ric Faurot on the 12th, but received no reply.)
>
> Tech,
>
> While everyone's having fun removing code from OpenSSL, I decided to add
> some to libasr. I implemented AI_ADDRCONFI
(I sent this diff to Éric Faurot on the 12th, but received no reply.)
Tech,
While everyone's having fun removing code from OpenSSL, I decided to add
some to libasr. I implemented AI_ADDRCONFIG, a getaddrinfo() flag
defined in RFC 2553/3493. Basically, it tells getaddrinfo() to skip
31 matches
Mail list logo
