Re: strange problem with ip6

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: Christian Kratzer <ck(at)cksoft(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, Brian Hirt <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6
Date: 2007-05-17 17:00:08
Message-ID: 20070517170008.GQ6907@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0200, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> of a specific interface. This is why bsd based oprating systems append
> %ifname to the address so that they know which Interface this address

Oh, I forgot about that wart in RFC4007. Thanks for the cluestick.

> There is propbaly not much point in using link local addreses for postgres.

I think that's not quite right. For instance, JDBC can't use UNIX
domain sockets last I checked, and I can imagine using it in a
disconnected context where you'd want to emulate multiple connection
points. Link local addresses would be perfect for this. So I think
it might be a bug, because Postgres isn't accepting the address
specification for scoped addresses. (In the local 8.1.x version I
have installed here, the inet type doesn't accept it either.) Now
that I re-read it, RFC4007 seems to be pretty clear that the scope
info is a necessary part of the addressing, so I don't think it can
be thrown away before looking at the address.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Kratzer 2007-05-17 17:29:47 Re: strange problem with ip6
Previous Message Christian Kratzer 2007-05-17 16:42:39 Re: strange problem with ip6