On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 07:43:16PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 03/10/2015 12:58 PM, Ján Tomko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 08:04:59PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > >> From: Luyao Huang <lhu...@redhat.com> > >> > >> If an interface or network has both ipv6 and ipv4 addresses which can > >> be used, we do not know which to use as a listen address. This patch > >> introduces the 'family' attribute to allow the XML to determine whether > >> the desire is to use IPv6 instead of IPv4 as the listen family to use. > >> The default will remain IPv4. > >> > > > > As Laine mentioned in his reply to v1: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-February/msg01080.html > > This is intended to be run only on networks with one address. With more > > addresses, you cannot control which one to use. > > It's been a while since I've had to "think" whether getifaddrs() would > return the same IPv4 address in the "first" entry as would be return > from the ioctl(SIOCGIFADDR)... IIRC, IPv4 addresses can be aliased to > the same device, but how getifaddrs handles returning addresses I just > don't have recent exposure to.. > > > > > If you want to listen on IPv6, don't configure an IPv4 address on the > > network and vice versa. This attribute does not seem that useful to me. > > > > The original bug > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192318 > > complained about 'no usable address' > > > > I think the bug here is not treating an ipv6 address as an IP address, > > not that we cannot choose the attribute by family. > > > > Jan > > > > hmmm... true we're really just looking to get "an" address and shouldn't > care what style it is. However, what if someone has both configured and > wants to force usage of one over the other? Maybe they've separate > their IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to connect to different places. Perhaps > forcing certain protocols over IPv6 rather than IPv4? Since both can be > defined in one <network> object - it's possible - how or why it would be > done I haven't given too much thought to. >
They can configure another separate network, or create a hook that fills in the proper <listen type='address'>. If we allow filtering by family, should we also introduce filtering by a netmask? Jan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
