Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 00:36:07 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mihir Luthra <luthramihir708@gmail.com>, Hiroki Sato <hrs@allbsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "hrs@freebsd.org" <hrs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: rpc.statd already ipv6 clean? Message-ID: <YTOPR0101MB11635147C66CD4959BF9A2B5DD800@YTOPR0101MB1163.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <F1F47B57-8491-47E8-A144-6CD75193FFAF@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAEa=dYAEKph9qOcegtEB%2BFXCMqdQpmbrbzOA548cvjk0L3KK4A@mail.gmail.com> <20190925.085753.1800759957383540219.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAEa=dYAnwxPjwZozU6K3GE7-Cjwx0rSemVd0ihrbUAUQw3jOLg@mail.gmail.com> <20190926.054603.242590258844901628.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAEa=dYCv=b7JxW4Ajc%2BgBNaC7z_SEiUhwyPz5vxjUNdkzvVmHQ@mail.gmail.com> <YTOPR0101MB1163687D58A2AEED58AECE21DD860@YTOPR0101MB1163.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAEa=dYBoy7ZLDTFV62_dqFeMnc3jmATaq%2BkvYgYvOXzEYaLz=A@mail.gmail.com> <YTOPR0101MB11631BCBCA27985AC11FC104DD810@YTOPR0101MB1163.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <F1F47B57-8491-47E8-A144-6CD75193FFAF@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >On 27 Sep 2019, at 21:52, Rick Macklem wrote: > >> Mihir Luthra wrote: >>> Hi Rick, >>> Rick wrote: >>>> Although I'll admit it isn't something I am particularily fond of, >>>> FreeBSD likes >>>> utilities to build/work with only one of ipv4/ipv6. >>>> To do this, "#ifdef INET" and "#ifdef INET6" is applied to the code >>>> and the >>>> Makefile is tweaked to define one or both of these. >>>> (You can look at usr.sbin/nfsuserd for an example of this.) >>> >>> Yes I see. Although I was thinking, wouldn't it be better if we can >>> take a flag via >getopts for ipv6/ipv4 if the machine supports both >>> with macro guards around >too? >> bz@ is the guy to ask. I've cc'd him. > >We are also exchanging private emails currently to sort out the >confusion between “compiling out”, transport protocol, and >addresses/protocol carried inside the (RPC) packets. > >This is three different things and all should be sorted. My work is >mostly on the “compiling out” as I don’t want/need INET anymore >mostly. Ensuring that the transport protocol works dual-stack is a >good, easier part. For RPC and some others making sure to be able to >not only transport IPv4 addresses in the payload protocol but also IPv6 >addresses can be the hard part. I assume the latter is what you were >referring to in the lines below? Yes. I do know there is some code in sys/rpc/rpc_generic.c (around line# 320-340) which shows how an IP6 address is coded in ascii to go on the wire. It basically uses inet_ntop() for the host address and then appends .N.N for the port#. However, I have no idea when/if rpc.statd uses that? >>> Btw, these protocols are old Sun Microsystems ones without any >>> published >>> RFC, so what is "correct" is difficult to determine. I suppose the >>> Open >>> Solaris sources is the best protocol specification. (Interop. testing >>> with Linux >>> would be nice, since Linux is the "defacto standard" now.) >>> >>> Good luck with it, rick >>> >>> Thanks for the tips, >>> Mihir >> rick rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB11635147C66CD4959BF9A2B5DD800>