Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> boote> It is behaving as if the IPV6_BINDV6ONLY sockopt is set... Has the
> boote> "default" value for this changed?
>
> Yes.
> BTW, IPV6_BINDV6ONLY has been superseded by IPV6_V6ONLY.
Ah - thanks.
> boote> Is it recommended that any server that wants to bind to the dual-
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Only if the spec says those are the only valid ranges. Then we have to
: keep up to date with changes in the spec, too. Either some simple sanity
: checks or checking for truly valid lengths -- 0, 40 bits, 128
On Saturday 29 March 2003 18:51, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> The code that prints out the keys for the 802.11 wireless stuff has
> the following it it:
>
> void
> ieee80211_status (int s, struct rt_addrinfo *info __unused)
> {
> ...
> if (ireq.i_len == 0 || ireq.i_len > 13)
>
Hi,
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:21:40 -0700
> "Jeff W. Boote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
boote> In any case - my server code works fine on 4.6 and 4.7 binding to both
boote> address families. However, I have just received a report of it only
boote> binding the v6 address on a FreeBSD 5.0 syst
