Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:37:09 +0000 From: rb@gid.co.uk To: Harald Eilertsen <haraldei@anduin.net> Cc: FreeBSD Java mailing list <freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 in Java on FreeBSD Message-ID: <79B052D3-8A9F-4658-AD33-EDD26BBB1A34@gid.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <ywr3pu3reutrld46yo5mirupwbgkt432wkbvdrt5ypeyronex4@eyqqqlwmgazf> References: <rndfmkxkd6gegwcutixzdiayaqkcuoz4ssqn4zqm2jogidx3oe@xwqgvxjara2a> <AC490949-4A9C-406A-96C4-A5FF4BFA4083@gid.co.uk> <ywr3pu3reutrld46yo5mirupwbgkt432wkbvdrt5ypeyronex4@eyqqqlwmgazf>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hi, There are also security implications to this, see inet6(4). > On 19 Feb 2025, at 13:25, Harald Eilertsen <haraldei@anduin.net> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:26:17PM +0000, Bob Bishop wrote: >> I would just point out that back in history Java used to want mapped >> IPv4 (net.inet6.ip6.v6only=0) if IPv6 was enabled; most people don’t >> want that which may be why IPv6 support hasn’t been enabled. > > That's really useful feedback! And the observation is still correct. > Java will by default clear the IPV6_V6ONLY flag on sockets when IPv6 is > available and requested (the default.) > > I've made a quick test, where I patch Java to leave the setting alone, > but otherwise leave IPv6 enabled. That will allow the sysctl setting to > decide whether to use dual-socket or only accept IPv6 connections on the > socket. > > Personally I think that makes sense. I'll update the PR's accordingly. > > Take care! > Harald > -- Bob Bishop rb@gid.co.uk [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQR+a6Wh87I/iYwcbE+8xpPppLfFvwUCZ7XehgAKCRC8xpPppLfF v09CAJ4p0Xu4UOsoxM9rj1tbNVKjaUrfQwCePG2OMlPYcYuHVGlE/NzsD2QxOu8= =5fw9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?79B052D3-8A9F-4658-AD33-EDD26BBB1A34>