Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:20:59 +0000 From: Jase Thew <freebsd@beardz.net> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: wietse@porcupine.org, lists@opsec.eu, sahil+freebsd-ports@tandon.net, garga@freebsd.org, freebsd@beardz.net, pav@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: "postfix-current" broken on amd64 platform Message-ID: <4EC693FB.1010409@beardz.net> In-Reply-To: <4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <3SkrRf563xzk2RT@spike.porcupine.org> <1321560805.6735.15.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18/11/2011 11:48, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Pav Lucistnik<pav@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0, >> but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0. > > Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an IPv6 > address on lo0 a realistic configuration for a "real" FreeBSD system? > If not, I'd think it worthwhile to make pointyhat more realistic. > (Either way, it seems unobjectionable to improve the robustness of > postfix, making it more liberal in what it accepts.) > FreeBSD jails only expose the IP addresses they are configured to use. So if you have an IPv6 enabled host (which is the default) with jails that are configured with only IPv4 addresses, then yes, it is very realistic. Furthermore, by default, jails don't have any v4 addresses assigned to the loopback interface - 127.0.0.1 and inaddr_loopback are automagically aliased to the primary v4 IP assigned to the jail. Jase.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC693FB.1010409>