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

[Guillem Jover]

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 15:11:11 +0300, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> > 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.

Cool, thanks.

> > 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.

Yeah, that was also one of the main reason for choosing those.

> Could you also update inetutils.texi?

Yes, I'll send an updated patch.

thanks,
guillem