Michael Felt <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> added the comment:
On 25/05/2019 00:19, Erwan Le Pape wrote:
> Erwan Le Pape <lepaperw...@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Thanks for testing that. It's good that you used an actual address because
> that eliminates the possibility that AIX doesn't handle addresses it doesn't
> really know about.
>
> On the other hand, even when properly specified to a real scoped IPv6
> address, `getaddrinfo` doesn't seem to get the necessary scope ID from the
> underlying C call which socket.getaddrinfo > _socket.getaddrinfo is pretty
> much mapped to.
>
> I'm looking at cpython/master for the socketmodule implementation:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/6dbbe748e101a173b4cff8aada41e9313e287e0f/Modules/socketmodule.c#L6400
> is `getaddrinfo`
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Modules/socketmodule.c#L1294 is
> `makesockaddr` which actually creates the 4-tuple returned as the last
> element of the `getaddrinfo` tuples.
> The fourth element (ie. the scope ID) is clearly `a->sin6_scope_id` which
> should contain the scope ID.
>
> At this stage, I don't know if this is a bug from the socketmodule which I
> doubt or if the AIX `getaddrinfo` simply just doesn't handle scoped IP
> addresses properly.
I also doubt a bug in the socketmodule - my assumption is that AIX may
be wrong - although I prefer different, i.e., has idiosyncrasies.
++ If we "accept" or "conclude" that AIX's getaddrinfo() routine is not
working as needed for this test - would "you" (Python-core) accept a
@SkipIf for this test - as is already done re: IPv6 re:
bpo-34490 Fix test_asyncio for AIX - do not call
transport.get_extra_info('sockname')
++ Further, I have a start on "send/receive" stubs in C and am trying
out different ideas - learn as I go. "netstat" clearly shows, as does
ifconfig -a
root@x066:[/]ifconfig -a
en0:
flags=1e080863,c0<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD(ACTIVE),LARGESEND,CHAIN>
inet 192.168.129.66 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.129.255
inet6 fe80::221:5eff:fea3:c746/64
tcp_sendspace 131072 tcp_recvspace 65536 rfc1323 0
en1:
flags=1e080863,480<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD(ACTIVE),CHAIN>
inet6 fe80::f8d1:8cff:fe32:8305%2/64
lo0:
flags=e08084b,c0<UP,BROADCAST,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,LARGESEND,CHAIN>
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 127.255.255.255
inet6 ::1%1/128
tcp_sendspace 131072 tcp_recvspace 131072 rfc1323 1
Sadly, I have a lot to learn re: IPv6 - and I expect how "host-based
routing" is concerned*, so movement forward will be slow going.
* from years ago, I recall a discussion where one of the improvements in
IPv6 compared to IPv4 is that the "work" of routing would be shared by
all end-points, rather than focused in router(-hubs) whose performance
basically determine the performance limits of a connection (or connections).
>
> If you're still okay to proxy tests for AIX, I'll try and come up with either
> a simple C snippet to see what's in the returned structure or ctype the AIX
> `libc` `getaddrinfo`.
Repeating - always willing.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35545>
> _______________________________________
>
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35545>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
