From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 18 17:21:07 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550AF1065673;
	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:21:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd@beardz.net)
Received: from svr06-mx.btshosting.co.uk (mx-2.btshosting.co.uk
	[178.63.196.248])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EC78FC13;
	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:21:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (027ecff8.bb.sky.com [2.126.207.248])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by svr06-mx.btshosting.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 226B441ECF;
	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:21:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=beardz.net; s=default;
	t=1321636865; bh=tV2XjKVI/P5Up5tOfWtolepVDUMlwNcJtXbsN5csxyI=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:
	In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=PslXfgYXhMR+ZOmH3ivMQHGtlP10RTb5EQ5sPqtvhyki9coGYait8gu99RzoODNbL
	F8ZzEme1vC6887+R0JwHr2i4ccNYYkRsPHyrblOK23m/BTgkWkdOhV7on9NufN9f36
	1Ddk9rmagGrh9IpVlPytp/XLtvDX7pjs/jPhORFU=
Message-ID: <4EC693FB.1010409@beardz.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:20:59 +0000
From: Jase Thew <freebsd@beardz.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: perryh@pluto.rain.com
References: <3SkrRf563xzk2RT@spike.porcupine.org>
	<1321560805.6735.15.camel@hood.oook.cz>
	<4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:21:07 -0000

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.