In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:03:42 +1000), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) says:
> I know how to fix this, but it then leads to the question, which way is > the correct way? There are three possibilities: > - Combine IPv6 and IPv4 sockets together -n tcp finds both IPv4 and > IPv6 sockets but you cannot distinguish between the two. > - Make a new namespace for IPv6, this means -n tcp 22 fails but -n tcp6 > 22 will find sshd, -n tcp6 80 wont find apache. > - Combine them and also have separate flags, perhaps tcp6 and tcp4. > - Is there another way? I prefer - Combine them and also have separate flags, perhaps tcp6 and tcp4. If you name tcp4 or tcp6, display only tcp over ipv4 or ipv6 respectively. It is probably acceptable: - Make a new namespace for IPv6, this means -n tcp 22 fails but -n tcp6 22 will find sshd, -n tcp6 80 wont find apache. I don't like: - Combine IPv6 and IPv4 sockets together -n tcp finds both IPv4 and IPv6 sockets but you cannot distinguish between the two. BTW, when our double-bind code become stable - recently re fixed some fatal problem; code should be experienced more -, we will contribute to the main stream; we may want to open two sockets on the "same" port. --yoshfuji
