Yo Jiri!

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:34:58 +0200
Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Whether or not ptp4l should set IPV6_V6ONLY unconditionally needs some
> more thinking, but my first impression is it would need to use IPv4
> multicast addresses (v4-mapped to IPv6) to send the packets to the v4
> hosts and not the IPv6 multicast addresses. This doesn't seem worth
> the complications and IPV6_V6ONLY looks like to be appropriate here.
> But somebody should think it through first :-)


Sadly not many people grok IPv6 yet.  Many fewer get IPv4 mapped to IPv6.
They want to think of as distinct, even when they are not.

In keeping with the principla of least surprise, I would say go with the
flow and implement IPV6_V6ONLY.

Then at a later date an option could be added to use just IPv6 with
IPv4 mapping.  But as you say, that has implications not thought through
yet.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
        g...@rellim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

Attachment: pgpkgd3Y7QaDr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel

Reply via email to