Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: strange problem with ip6

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6
Date: 2007-05-17 17:49:54
Message-ID: 20070517174954.GT6907@phlogiston.dyndns.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
		--George Orwell

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-05-17 18:39:55
Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6
Previous:From: Christian KratzerDate: 2007-05-17 17:29:47
Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group