This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug network/12377] getaddrinfo() should disregard link-local IPv6 addresses for AI_ADDRCONFIG purposes


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12377

--- Comment #23 from Pavel Åimerda <psimerda at redhat dot com> 2012-07-31 22:22:25 UTC ---
> However, during testing now I did notice that when I purge my system of IPv4
> addresses, leaving only the 127.0.0.1 loopback one, IN A lookups are *not*
> suppressed when AI_ADDRCONFIG is in use. That's certainly a (different) bug.

This is what I observed.

> Furthermore, I never hid the fact that RFC 2553 isn't the current one. I
> pointed that out explicitly, in fact, by saying ÂRFC 3493 changed the
> definition of getaddrinfo() from the original DNS-only definition in RFC 2553
> [...]Â.
> 
> So I strenuously object to your accusation of me Âcheating here.

Don't take things too serious.

> > DNS is now only as an example. This part of the new RFC is *wrong* and we
> > should not implement it. The specification should be fixed then.
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> 
> The language in RFC 3493 is more general, I'm guessing the reason for changing
> it in that way was so that it would stand up to changes in DNS itself (or even
> the possible replacement of DNS with something else entirely). For example, RFC
> 2553 refers specifically to AAAA records, but after its publication, the (now
> abandoned) A6 resource record had been defined in RFC 2874.

Yes, the new text misses a lot of important things.

> A strict interpretation of the new language in RFC 3493 does indeed mean that
> AI_ADDRCONFIG lookups for IP address literals should fail if there are no
> global address of the same address family configured on the node, even for link
> locals and loopback addresses. Also that the "localhost" host name only resolve
> to the address family from which there are global addresses,

This is sort of narrow minded. Probably the editors didn't have enough time to
think about it in real world.

> in the case of a single-stack host (with a dual-stacked loopback interface).

Maybe this is the problem. People are thinking about single stack and dual
stack
hosts. But we actually don't have many single stack hosts. But we do have
single
stack (or single version) networks.

> When considering the original specification of AI_ADDRCONFIG and trying to
> understand the problem it tried to solve, and what went with DNS between its
> publication and that of RFC 3493, I am of the opinion that the problematic side
> effects caused by the new language in RFC 3493 were entirely unintentional.

I'm sure about it. âAlways assume good willâ

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]