hello,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Brett Cannon wrote:
| On 22 Mar 2007 19:47:50 +0200, Erno Kuusela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >Hello,
| >
| >Would it be out of the question to change the IPv6 address 4-tuple to
| >a 2-tuple (as used with IPv4) in Python 2.0? This is a source of many
| >compatibility
hello,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
| >Would it be out of the question to change the IPv6 address 4-tuple to
| >a 2-tuple (as used with IPv4) in Python 2.0? This is a source of many
| >compatibility problems, and the additional flowinfo and scope elements
| >from the IPv6 tuple a
hello,
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
| > i understand your concern. current 4-tuple is direct mapping from
| > struct sockaddr_in6 (which has those two additional members).
|
| note however, you must rewrite DNS resolving from gethostby* to
| get*info
> I first suggested just chopping off the flowid and scopeid parts of the
> tuple. Itojun's reply seems to indicate we could potentially get away
> with merging the scopeid to the IP address part in a standard fashion,
> and discarding the flowid part.
Thanks for this research? As a next step, it
> The problem is that people do unpack the tuple a lot of the time as the
> first thing when they get the address. I suppose the elements are
> sometimes later used for things like logging and debug output. Also
> people are used to conceptually destructuring the address as "host,
> port" in their
