Hendrik Sattler <p...@hendrik-sattler.de> writes: > I guess not all of them. OTOH, not all of them might use AF_INET6 > sockets for IPv4 connections (the two-sockets approach is always > possible when using IPV6_V6ONLY socket option).
> At least xinetd uses IPV6_ADDRFORM although that socket option is > already deprecated again but still useful for such cases. > openbsd-inetd explicitely doesn't support IPv4-mapped addresses, > configuration needs seperate IPv4 and IPv6 setup. > I didn't look at the other two. Thank you very much for the investigation! That's really useful information (at least to me) and I appreciate you taking the effort. I took a quick look at the source of rlinetd, and so far as I can tell it will do whatever the default IPv6 stack behavior is. It iterates through every return from getaddrinfo for AI_PASSIVE for a particular family, and doesn't appear to do anything special with the resulting socket before passing it along to the underlying server. But I'm not sure that I'm following the code. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877hoafvp8....@windlord.stanford.edu