On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:29:47PM +0200, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> supporting scoped addresses could have their uses but then again
> theres nothing stopping you to bind multiple global ipv6 addresses
> to your loopback interface which would work fine for disconnected
> setups and it might be a bit cleaner.
True, but there's no unscoped private-use address space in IPv6 the
way there is in v4 (i.e. no 1918-style addresses for v6). Which
means that unless you want to use addresses that ought to be
scoped (like link-local) without a scope, you have to use real
addresses instead. Hmm. Well, I guess you could use 2001:DB8::/32,
which is reserved for documentation. I'm just worried that, because
we don't support scoped addresses, people are going to configure
things with _real_ addresses they haven't been allocated, and then
accidentally connect such a configuration to the Internet. All my
experience tells me that such things eventually always leak, and I'd
hate for Postgres to be the source of that sort of damage.
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-17 18:39:55|
|Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6 |
|Previous:||From: Christian Kratzer||Date: 2007-05-17 17:29:47|
|Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6|