On 2019-06-01 20:44:29 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Which specific information in that man page contradicts what I wrote? > > We can agree that the mentioned IP addresses are distinct. > But the corresponding functionality should be equivalent. > > > > If you think of > > > > | IPv4 connections can be handled with the v6 API by using the > > | v4-mapped-on-v6 address type; thus a program needs to support only > > | this API type to support both protocols. > > > > please note that 127.0.0.1 mapped to IPv6 is ::7f00:1, not ::1.
Oops, that should have been ::ffff:7f00:1.
> I find another information like “This is handled transparently by
> the address handling functions in the C library.” also interesting.
"Handled transparently" means that an ipv6 server can handle connections
from ipv4 clients without doing anything special. They just appear to
come from a specific IPv6 address range. It doesn't mean the OS performs
random address translations according to user's expectations of
"equivalence".
> > So you still need to bind to two addresses.
>
> I am unsure about this conclusion.
Well, we don't study theology here. We don't have to theorize (no pun
intended), we can experiment. Why don't you just try it out?
> Under which circumstances will the Python programming interfaces
> support the direct usage of the identification “::1”?
I'm not sure I understand the question. They do.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated
| | | h...@hjp.at | management tools.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
