|
Message-ID: <20130725144212.09f9933a@sibserver.ru> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:42:12 +0800 From: orc <orc@...server.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] inet_ntop() and ipv4 address On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:59:13 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:21:27PM +0800, orc wrote: > > inet_ntop() does not embed plain ipv4 address at end (like > > "::ffff:10.0.0.1"). This patch fixes it, but it is a bit ugly. > > Without it is a bit harder to read logs of some daemons that > > support only one address family socket binding and seeing output of > > 'ss -tn'. Adopt if needed. > > As I understand it, the "IPv4 compatible" addresses (::a.b.c.d) are > deprecated and have never actually been used in deployed IPv6. Only > the v4-mapped form (::ffff:a.b.c.d) is used/usable. For the most part, > supporting the useless form seems harmless, but there is one harmful > case: it looks like your code will wrongly convert :: to ::0.0.0.0 > instead of plain ::. Is it worth trying to keep the "v4 compatible" > form supported and just special-casing ::, or should we just drop it? > > Rich I think it's still worth supporting ::ffff:a.b.c.d form, just quote from my vsftpd logs: CONNECT: Client "::ffff:a00:203" # (for 10.0.2.3) Same output of 'ss -tn' when someone connected to IPv6-only listening socket. IPv4 compatible addresses I taken from glibc. Wrong convert: see my next message. It was my fault.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.