On 2007/12/12 18:57, Marc Balmer wrote:
> for the time being, I changed the diff to use IPv4 as the default.
> I build a (local and unoffcial) snapshot with it and deployed it
> on our production servers. There is no problem known to me atm.
> And update changed nothing, but allowed me to _optiona
for the time being, I changed the diff to use IPv4 as the default.
I build a (local and unoffcial) snapshot with it and deployed it
on our production servers. There is no problem known to me atm.
And update changed nothing, but allowed me to _optionally_ turn
on IPv6 support.
If you want to help
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 17:55]:
> and the convention should be that * means 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 only
> stacks and :: for dual or IPv6 stacks.
that is incredibly stupid, and no, that is not the convention.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services,
On 19:19:30 Dec 08, Mats O Jansson wrote:
> This is the problem. You are trying to switch a daemon to be IPv6 centric
> when the majority of our users doesn't use IPv6. I can understand that
> KAME has that agenda but I dont think OpenBSD should.
>
I know only one thing and it is this.
I was
rts for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
-> it was only bound to v6
README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one needs
Listen :: 80
Listen 0.0.0.0 80
my test suggests even without vhosts these are needed to run both v4 and
v6.
Of course you need this.
wait.
Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi misc,
[i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
-> it was only bound to v6
README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one needs
Listen :: 80
Listen 0.0.0.0 80
I did put up a new diff on http://mini.vnode.ch/di
> >>>>> Hi misc,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
> >>>>> -> it was only bound to v6
> >
Hi.
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Marc Balmer wrote:
well, and now send me a diff please ;)
You're the one sending ipv6-enabled Apache-patches, not I :-)
Even though I used it for years (some time with ipv6 access enabled) I am
not using it currently, www/lighttpd fits *currently* my needs better.. :
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:23:55 +0100, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
so either people live with the fact that *:port becomes 0.0.0.0:port
for the IPv4 case and ::port for the IPv6 case
How about ditching support for * and just support 0.0.0.0:port and
::port?
Anyone who agrees on thi
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:29]:
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:49]:
Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi misc,
[i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock http
Antti Harri wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Marc Balmer wrote:
* means all addresses in the default address family. and with this
diff, that means all IPv6 addresses. The default can be changed
on the command line using the -4 and -6 options (or by being explicit
in the config file).
Using IPv4 a
Linus Swdlas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intuitivly feel that * means IPv4 and IPv6,
That's the way it is in ntpd(8).
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 16:07]:
Right now I am looking if the code can be changed to make '*:port'
a synonym for '0.0.0.0:port', so the old notation would mean IPv4
only.
If this is possible, existing config files would continue to work,
with IPv4 onl
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Marc Balmer wrote:
* means all addresses in the default address family. and with this
diff, that means all IPv6 addresses. The default can be changed
on the command line using the -4 and -6 options (or by being explicit
in the config file).
Using IPv4 as the default addres
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Todd T. Fries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 16:06]:
I think you need to realize what you are saying is misleading at best.
not at all, you miss the point.
Yes this diff creates a mini flag day for httpd's conf file
which is absolutely not needed and stupid.
* mean
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 04:56:24PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> hey, this my development box. I run experiments and from time to
> time it's IPv4 only, IPv6 only etc ;) Depending on what I am
> trying at the moment.
>
> You just hit the wrong time slot ;)
>
> It should be fine now.
>
:) i'm ju
Marc Balmer wrote:
Marc Balmer wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:55:09PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
Reyk Floeter wrote:
hopefully it is not running the patched httpdv6 (or is it IPv6 only?):
$ lynx http://mini.vnode.ch/manual/ipv6.html
Looking up mini.vnode.ch
Making HTTP connection to mini.vnode.ch
Alert!: Unable to connect to remote host.
lynx: Can't access startfile http://mini.vno
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Frank Habicht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:13]:
On 12/8/2007 4:55 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
tha
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:50]:
so either people live with the fact that *:port becomes 0.0.0.0:port
for the IPv4 case and ::port for the IPv6 case or we forget about
IPv6 support in httpd for know. I certainly have neither time nor
the energy to invo
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 16:07]:
> Right now I am looking if the code can be changed to make '*:port'
> a synonym for '0.0.0.0:port', so the old notation would mean IPv4
> only.
>
> If this is possible, existing config files would continue to work,
> with IPv4 only.
that would
hopefully it is not running the patched httpdv6 (or is it IPv6 only?):
$ lynx http://mini.vnode.ch/manual/ipv6.html
Looking up mini.vnode.ch
Making HTTP connection to mini.vnode.ch
Alert!: Unable to connect to remote host.
lynx: Can't access startfile http://mini.vnode.ch/manual/ipv6.html
* Todd T. Fries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 16:06]:
> I think you need to realize what you are saying is misleading at best.
not at all, you miss the point.
> Yes this diff creates a mini flag day for httpd's conf file
which is absolutely not needed and stupid.
* means v6? c'mon.
--
Hennin
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:29]:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>> * Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:49]:
>>> Frank Habicht wrote:
>>>> Hi misc,
>>>>
>>>> [i guess misc is better than ports for tha
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:50]:
> so either people live with the fact that *:port becomes 0.0.0.0:port
> for the IPv4 case and ::port for the IPv6 case or we forget about
> IPv6 support in httpd for know. I certainly have neither time nor
> the energy to involve in fights ove
* Frank Habicht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 15:13]:
> On 12/8/2007 4:55 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
> >> httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
> >> That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
> >
> > that i
Linus Swdlas wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:41:36 +0100, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the unspecified address is 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and :: for IPv6. '*'
is ambigous and it makes no sense to assume '0.0.0.0' and '::' if
a user specifies '*'. This could lead to security problems if
some
Marc Balmer wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:55:09PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
that is completely
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 03:41:36PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> it would mean code changes for which I have not time right now.
>
> the unspecified address is 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and :: for IPv6. '*'
> is ambigous and it makes no sense to assume '0.0.0.0' and '::' if
> a user specifies '*'. This cou
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:41:36 +0100, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the unspecified address is 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and :: for IPv6. '*'
is ambigous and it makes no sense to assume '0.0.0.0' and '::' if
a user specifies '*'. This could lead to security problems if
someone would not be awa
Henning,
I think you need to realize what you are saying is misleading at best.
The v6 diff permits you to start listening on v6 _only_ if you specify
a Listen directive that contains a v6 address, including but not
limited to, a wildcard v6 address: :: .
The v6 diff changes the misleading *:80
Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:55:09PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
that is completely wrong and disqualifi
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:55:09PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
> > httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
> > That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
>
> that is completely wrong and disqualifies this patch
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:49]:
Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi misc,
[i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
-> it was only bound to v6
README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one nee
Frank Habicht wrote:
On 12/8/2007 4:55 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
that is completely wrong and disqualifies this patch.
you are
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
that is completely wrong and disqualifies this patch.
you are fucking everybody for no good reason, as
On 12/8/2007 4:55 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
>> httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
>> That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
>
> that is completely wrong and disqualifies this patch.
> you are fucking ev
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:51]:
> httpd with IPv6 support uses IPv6 addresses for ambigious constructs.
> That is documented in the httpd(8) manpage.
that is completely wrong and disqualifies this patch.
you are fucking everybody for no good reason, as suddenly their httpds
* Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 09:49]:
> Frank Habicht wrote:
> > Hi misc,
> >
> > [i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
> >
> > I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
> > -> it was only bound to v6
> >
I have put a HTML version of the README content with some clarifications
(I hope...) online under the following URL:
http://mini.vnode.ch/manual/ipv6.html
This is work in progress and I will extend is as needed. The plan is to
install this file with the other HTML documentation (if others are f
Frank Habicht wrote:
[i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
-> it was only bound to v6
README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one needs
Listen :: 80
Listen 0.0.0.0 80
my test suggests even without vhosts these are needed to
Frank Habicht wrote:
> Hi misc,
>
> [i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
>
> I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
> -> it was only bound to v6
>
> README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one needs
> Listen :: 80
> Listen 0.0.0.0 80
>
&g
Hi misc,
[i guess misc is better than ports for that..]
I ran the patched httpdv6 with the stock httpd.conf
-> it was only bound to v6
README.v6 suggests _for_Vhost_operation_ one needs
Listen :: 80
Listen 0.0.0.0 80
my test suggests even without vhosts these are needed to run both v4 and
43 matches
Mail list logo
