On 27 Sep 2019, at 21:52, Rick Macklem wrote:
Mihir Luthra wrote:
Hi Rick,
Rick wrote:
Although I'll admit it isn't something I am particularily fond of,
FreeBSD likes
utilities to build/work with only one of ipv4/ipv6.
To do this, "#ifdef INET" and "#ifdef INET6" is applied to the code
and the
Makefile is tweaked to define one or both of these.
(You can look at usr.sbin/nfsuserd for an example of this.)
Yes I see. Although I was thinking, wouldn't it be better if we can
take a flag via >getopts for ipv6/ipv4 if the machine supports both
with macro guards around >too?
bz@ is the guy to ask. I've cc'd him.
We are also exchanging private emails currently to sort out the
confusion between “compiling out”, transport protocol, and
addresses/protocol carried inside the (RPC) packets.
This is three different things and all should be sorted. My work is
mostly on the “compiling out” as I don’t want/need INET anymore
mostly. Ensuring that the transport protocol works dual-stack is a
good, easier part. For RPC and some others making sure to be able to
not only transport IPv4 addresses in the payload protocol but also IPv6
addresses can be the hard part. I assume the latter is what you were
referring to in the lines below?
Btw, these protocols are old Sun Microsystems ones without any
published
RFC, so what is "correct" is difficult to determine. I suppose the
Open
Solaris sources is the best protocol specification. (Interop. testing
with Linux
would be nice, since Linux is the "defacto standard" now.)
Good luck with it, rick
Thanks for the tips,
Mihir
rick
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
