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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.


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


pgsql-bugs by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group