Re: [bug-inetutils] [RFC] [PATCH] inetd: Change protocol semantics in inetd.conf

[Sergey Poznyakoff]

Hi Guillem,

> I'd like to know if my current approach is acceptable for
> upstreaming

In my opinion, yes, it is.

> The solution I've implemented is to make tcp and udp IPv4 only, which
> is what it should be (for now, for compatibility reasons), otherwise
> this breaks too many programs expectations.

Yes, it is reasonable.  Thanks for working on this.

> Then I changed tcp6 and udp6 to be v4mapped (with the assumption that
> any code prepared to handle IPv6 sockets should be able to handle dual
> stack ones), and added tcp6only and udp6only to be IPv6 only connections.
> This mimics the behaviour of other inetd implementations with IPv6
> support, namely Solaris inetd. But you might prefer a different behaviour,
> for example the FreeBSD one of making tcp6/udp6 IPv6 only and adding
> tcp46/udp46 for IPv4 mapped addresses.

I believe you've made the right choice: the `*6only' names are better.
Could you also update inetutils.texi?

Regards,
Sergey