From owner-freebsd-net Sun Oct 29 7:55:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E2B37B4E5 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:55:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by gw.nectar.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5721B193DF; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:55:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:55:30 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getaddrinfo and the UNIX domain Message-ID: <20001029095530.A26020@spawn.nectar.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , itojun@iijlab.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20001028163909.A77420@hamlet.nectar.com> <25904.972806047@coconut.itojun.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <25904.972806047@coconut.itojun.org>; from itojun@iijlab.net on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 04:54:07PM +0900 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 04:54:07PM +0900, itojun@iijlab.net wrote: > NRL getaddrinfo supports PF_UNIX (= PF_LOCAL) family. as NRL > getaddrinfo is in linux distributions, i belive openldap guys are > assuming that linux behavior is correct. > > from standardization standpoint, all documents are silent about which > address family are mandatory to be supported. as getaddrinfo is an > "address family independent service address/name lookup" function, one > can claim that everything has to be supported. however, we have some > limit in supports. for example, if we try to support PF_UNIX, it is > not very compatible with current definition of getaddrinfo flags (like > NI_NUMERICSERV). i don't think we can convert /tmp/some-socket into > some numeric. > > how critical is it for openldap? It is not critical -- it is easily worked around. I do have to admit, however, that having getaddrinfo handle PF_LOCAL sockets in some fashion does make the application code a bit cleaner, in that it eliminates a special case. I think that if getaddrinfo were to support PF_LOCAL, then it could just return errors for flags that make no sense, like NI_NUMERICSERV. Thanks, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message