[Nut-upsdev] Re: [nut-commits] svn commit r714 - in trunk: . server

[Henning Brauer]

* Arjen de Korte <nut+devel at de-korte.org> [2007-01-10 10:42]:
> 
> > yes, and I suggest to not waste any cycles on trying to have v4-mapped
> > addresses matching against v4 policy.
> 
> Indeed, we'll leave it in its present state and move the focus to a better
> solution. Until then, people will have to choose if they want an IPv4 or
> IPv6 listening socket. If one chooses for the latter, IPv4 mapping *may*
> work if the OS supports it otherwise, you're out of luck. So far, we've
> only supported IPv4, so the addition of the IPv6 code is already somewhat
> of an improvement, so I don't think we're seriously hurting anyone here.

ack.

> The question remains how to migrate to the new situation. If nothing is
> specified by the user, we should probably open an AF_INET socket bound to
> 0.0.0.0 (as has been the default so far in released versions, if nothing
> is specified on the commandline). 

yes.

> But would it be wise to open an AF_INET6
> socket bound to [::] as well, or would that open up a security hole?

errr... wait. you keep saying upsd only has one listening socket for 
now, and now you want to open two? :)

you must have an AF_INET socket.
once upsd can handle more than one, an _additional_ one on :: is fine. 
bit the AF_INET one must be there (unless $user explicitely cnfigures 
sth else)

-- 
Henning Brauer, hb at bsws.de, henning at openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam