Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:14:33 +0900 From: itojun@iijlab.net To: Hajimu UMEMOTO (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCR19LXBsoQiAbJEJIJRsoQg==?=) <ume@mahoroba.org> Cc: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca, alex@big.endian.de, ume@bisd.hitachi.co.jp, andrews@technologist.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp(1) breakage w/ passive mode? Message-ID: <4986.959735673@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: ume's message of Wed, 31 May 2000 03:30:25 JST. <200005301830.e4UIUOS49066@peace.mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Yes. the patch convert all IPv4 mapped IPv6 address returned into >IPv4 address. If someone announce mapped address using AAAA RR, it >also converted. So, caller have no chance to know whether returned >address is mapped address or native IPv4 address. However, I think >this is rare case in at least now. >After correcting getaddrinfo()'s search order, in some case, A RR is >accidentaly converted into mapped address without expectation of >caller. This may confuse IPv4 people and force inconvenience. I >worry about this. >Fixing ftp(1) and other caller is also important. But, it is another >issue. isn't there some issue in getipnodebyname(), instead of getaddrinfo()? (NOTE: I'm not really up-to-date with the current status of freebsd4 lib/libc/net) if you can tell me repeatable example of getaddrinfo() failure, that would be helpful... itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4986.959735673>