From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuqDl-0004Mt-5z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:11:01 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuqDj-0004Lb-8x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:10:59 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55850 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KuqDi-0004LN-Q1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:10:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:37916) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KuqDi-0008Vl-5c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:10:58 -0400 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9SFAvGo031463 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:10:57 -0400 Message-ID: <49072B7E.9060501@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:10:54 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] sockets: helper functions for qemu. References: <1225198518-16529-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1225198518-16529-3-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20081028131554.GV18016@redhat.com> <4907202B.9090703@redhat.com> <20081028143119.GX18016@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20081028143119.GX18016@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> Sure? I've googled a bit on this issue, looked what apache does here. >> I've figured this can be changed per socket, with a system-wide default >> configurable via sysctl (and different OSes have different default >> configs here). > > Ah, I was mis-understanding what IPV6_V6ONLY was doing here. If that's > portable to BSD like OS too, then I reckon that's sufficient and would > avoid need for separate sockets. I hope so, but didn't actually test that on something BSDish. Maybe the BSD folks on the list can comment/test? > Uli was demonstrating how to achieve total protocol independance > in your code. So if someone invents something better even than > IPv6 your code would still work. If you're happy to limit yourself > to just IPv4 & IPv6, then the IPV6_V6ONLY trick would work. Right now there isn't anything else, and I'd prefer to tackle the issue of other protocols once we have them. There are also some more ipv4/v6 assumptions in the code, so other protocols wouldn't work out-of-the-box anyway. cheers, Gerd