Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-10 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:28:28 +0100 > Ulrich Sp$(D+S(Brlein said: uqs> The source address problem I'm now talking about is happening on my uqs> router at home, which has a Sixxs tunnel and needs to use AICCU of all uqs> things to talk to the outside world, sixxs-aiccu will create t

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-10 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:23:01 + > Ben Morrow said: ben> ip6addrctl does more than just order v4 vs v6: it also sorts the v6 ben> addresses, in a way which can be quite important. IMHO both the v6 ben> addresses returned from getipnodebyname and the addresses returned from ben> g

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <20130110002257.ga84...@anubis.morrow.me.uk>, Ben Morrow writes: > Yeah; I agree that the v4-mapped option is pretty useless (even when > using a stack which supports it). I suspect the IETF people were trying > too hard to account for the case of a v6-only stack talking to the v4 > Int

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Ben Morrow
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO : > Hi, > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 + > > Ben Morrow said: > > ben> Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is > ben> the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first > ben> made for records and if succe

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 23:42:10 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Ulrich Spörlein wrote > in <20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: > > > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote: > > > On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote: > > > > Ulrich Spörlein wrote > > > >in <201301

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:29:00 + > Ben Morrow said: ben> Where does it say that? All I can find (but I might be being stupid) is ben> the bit in the description of AI_ALL where it says 'A query is first ben> made for records and if successful, the IPv6 addresses are ben> retu

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hiroki Sato
Ben Morrow wrote in <20130109154435.ga81...@anubis.morrow.me.uk>: be> So getipnodebyname is behaving correctly here: the host has both IPv4 be> and IPv6 addresses, and Sendmail is requesting both native and v4-mapped be> addresses be returned in all cases. The v4-mapped addresses are then be> s

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Ben Morrow
Quoth Hajimu UMEMOTO : > > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900 > > Hajimu UMEMOTO said: > > ume> I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read > ume> RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are > ume> returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Ben Morrow
Quoth Hiroki Sato : > Gregory Shapiro wrote > in <20130108180920.gj36...@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com>: > > gs> > How can I unstupid sendmail here? > gs> > gs> I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has > gs> been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I thin

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900 > Hajimu UMEMOTO said: ume> I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read ume> RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are ume> returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad thing. X-( I've just committe

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:42:10 +0900 (JST) > Hiroki Sato said: hrs> This is because the prefix on the interface has the first priority. hrs> Why don't you use an fe80::/10 address to route packets to the other hrs> endpoint of tun0? I don't like this policy. I think it reduce th

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hiroki Sato
Ulrich Spörlein wrote in <20130109142111.gl35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: uq> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote: uq> > On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote: uq> > > Ulrich Spörlein wrote uq> > >in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: uq> > > uq> > > uq> After

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 14:14:18 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote: > On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote: > > Ulrich Spörlein wrote > >in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: > > > > uq> After setting this, it now looks like this: > > uq> root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl > > uq> Prefix

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:33:54 +0900 (JST) > Hiroki Sato said: hrs> I think this just hides the problem. If gshapiro@'s explanation is hrs> correct, no :::0.0.0.0/96 address should be returned if the name hrs> resolution works fine... I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6add

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-09 Thread Michiel Boland
On 01/08/2013 23:33, Hiroki Sato wrote: Ulrich Spörlein wrote in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: uq> After setting this, it now looks like this: uq> root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl uq> Prefix Prec Label Use uq> ::1/128 50 0

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Hiroki Sato
Ulrich Spörlein wrote in <20130108184051.gi35...@acme.spoerlein.net>: uq> After setting this, it now looks like this: uq> root@acme: ~# ip6addrctl uq> Prefix Prec Label Use uq> ::1/128 50 00 uq> ::/0

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Hiroki Sato
Gregory Shapiro wrote in <20130108180920.gj36...@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com>: gs> > How can I unstupid sendmail here? gs> gs> I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has gs> been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think gs> something changed with the u

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 10:09:20 -0800, Gregory Shapiro wrote: > > How can I unstupid sendmail here? > > I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has been > doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think something changed > with the upgrade to 9.1. As far as tr

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:36:34 +0100, Michiel Boland wrote: > On 01/08/2013 16:18, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I upgraded a server running 8.x to 9.1 over the weekend and sendmail no > > longer wants to bind the AF_INET6 sockets. > > > > So while this still works: > > > > DAEMON_OPTIONS

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Michiel Boland
On 01/08/2013 16:18, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: [...] 98054 sendmail CALL bind(0x7,0x708dbc,0x1c) 98054 sendmail STRU struct sockaddr { AF_INET6, [:::88.198.49.12]:587 } 98054 sendmail RET bind -1 errno 49 Can't assign requested address Yeah right ... I don't want an IPv6-mapped-IPv4

Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Gregory Shapiro
> How can I unstupid sendmail here? I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think something changed with the upgrade to 9.1. As far as tracking it down, the sendmail code does: getipnodebyname("acme.spoerlei

sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1

2013-01-08 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
Hey, I upgraded a server running 8.x to 9.1 over the weekend and sendmail no longer wants to bind the AF_INET6 sockets. So while this still works: DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp, Addr=127.0.0.1, Name=MSA, M=Eu, InputMailFilters=dkim') DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp, Addr=::1, Name=MSA, Family=inet6, M=Eu