On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 16:59 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 16:30 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > Yes and no. I thought the motivation for doing what you currently > > do > > > was > > > to avoid mixing AF_INET and AF_INET6 sockets, since the latter > > > listen on > > > both IPv4 (via the IPv4 mapping) and IPv6? > > > > AF_INET6 listeners can receive AF_INET packets too, but don't have > > to. My motivation was to use a single listener so we don't have to > > support multiple family listeners for each transport protocol in the > > server-side code. Also, having a separate IPv6-only listener means > > that someone can come along and hijack the IPv4 packets on that port. > > > > It's just less of a headache with one listener. > > The ipv6 manpage says that the port spaces are shared. If so, I don't > see how you can have both an AF_INET socket and an AF_INET6 socket bound > to the same port. Never mind. I just found the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option. I wonder why that isn't documented in any manpages... Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
