On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> I think so - Gavin? As far as I'm aware there's not really anything else
> on the open source circuit. There is often a MySQL rep there as well
> apparently.
Chris is right. David Axmark (MySQL AB) usually turns up, but he didn't
this year.
I think so - Gavin? As far as I'm aware there's not really anything else
on the open source circuit. There is often a MySQL rep there as well
apparently.
Chris
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Is Linux.conf.au the event PostgreSQL should use for coverage in
> Australia next year?
Is Linux.conf.au the event PostgreSQL should use for coverage in
Australia next year?
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Linux.conf.au Report
>
>
> The Linux.conf.au is an international Linux/Open Sou
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >> I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
> >> should be a configuration variable:
> >>
> >> tcpip_socket = true
> >> ipv6 = true
>
> > We had a huge discussion on this. I think
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [virtual_host] currently only seems to support 1 address, and I don't really
> know why. Is there a reason you can't make this a list of
> hostnames/ip addresses?
That was what the boys at uu.net needed, so that's what they
implemented. If you need more,
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >> I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
> >> should be a configuration variable:
> >>
> >> tcpip_socket = true
> >> ipv6 = true
>
> >
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think I was the one who talked us into assuming that ipv4 and ipv6
> should be treated as a single protocol. But some people have since made
> pretty good cases that it's better to regard them as separate protocols.
>From a security standpoint, I think it'
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> I don't think we should listen on IPv6 just because it is supported. It
>> should be a configuration variable:
>>
>> tcpip_socket = true
>> ipv6 = true
> We had a huge discussion on this. I think you were away for it. You
> can
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
> > socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
> > connections. I also want to be
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
> > > > socket API implementations) that you want to
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
> > > socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
> >
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:19:23AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Depending on the OS, binding to all addresses on IPv6 will also
> > bind to all the ipv4 addresses, which can be both handy an
> > annoying. On others you need 2 sockets if you want to listen on
> > both ipv4 a
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
> > socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
> > connections. I also want to be able to say the same
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:35:15PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> Sure. But you still want to be able to say (and can say, in some [many?]
> socket API implementations) that you want to accept only IPv4 or only IPv6
> connections. I also want to be able to say the same thing in my database.
You j
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> It's a good things that the socket interface can actually work
> with all protocol! It doesn't only work with AF_INET, but also
> AF_UNIX, and probably others. It's a good things that things
> like socket(), bind(), connect() don't need to be replaced by
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:51:49PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:21:21PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > What do you mean with "compatibility addresses"? I don't know of
> > any such thing.
>
> | 96-bits | 32-bits|
>
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> But the pain of making them
> interoperate is part of the cause of resistance. The compatibility
> addresses are going to _have_ to work if people are really going to
> move...
There is no pain in this respect; you get your compatability by simply
ru
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:21:21PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> What do you mean with "compatibility addresses"? I don't know of
> any such thing.
I'm thinking of these sorts of things (my faviourite description,
from RFC 2893):
IPv6/IPv4 nodes that perform automatic tunneling are assigned
IPv4-c
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 13:04, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:21:09PM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > It doesn't help the
> > confusion that many OS's try to confuse programmers by exposing a single
> > socket interface, etc. Simple fact remains, IPv6 is not IPv4.
>
> It's a good t
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:13:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We have to work out what the semantics should be. I don't know anything
> >> about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:21:09PM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> IPv6 has some provisions to help people migrate toward it (from IPv4),
> however, IPv6 is a distinctly different protocol.
The ipv4 mapped ipv6 addresses are to help migrate, but it
actually makes things worse. If this wouldn't b
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Soon, the NAT + CIDR bag-on-the-side will run out of room, and people
> will have no choice but to use IPv6. But the pain of making them
> interoperate is part of the cause of resistance. The compatibility
> addresses are going
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:57:17AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
> record types ("A" versus "") in the DNS "database".
>
> And the "interoperation" if IPv4 and IPv6 is pretty much not happening,
> if you're talking about th
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't know anything
> about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
> address space ...
No, they do not. The address spaces are completely independent. (There
is a "compatability space" for IPv4 addresses, but it turned out to be
i
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 19:57, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> > it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> > IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
>
> Hm? DNS comp
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
rec
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
> > network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
> > two are freely mixed in the same data type?
>
> We have to work out what the sem
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see the argument for that. (It'd have to be an argument that
> doesn't just establish a scenario where you'd want that, but proves
> that we should force that point of view upon every application using
> IP addresses.)
Given tha
Steve Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
> exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
I would assume we'd add a test function like is_v6(inet). Given that,
you could add a check constraint "is_v6(col)" or "NOT is_v6(col)"
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same data
[ pgsql-advocacy trimmed from cc list; seems off-topic for them ]
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
>> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should
On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be mutually
> exclusive. Extra code in inet type causing bloat.
The inet code has been designed from day one to hand
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
> d
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
doing otherwise?
regards,
> Yeah. This is a pretty self-contained problem, it just needs someone
> who's motivated to work on it. Mostly what we need is to understand how
> we want to extend the previously-agreed-to I/O behaviors for IPv4 inet
> and cidr types into the v6 domain. (Or should we back up and ask if the
> in
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux.conf.au Report
> [ much snipped ]
> * IPV6 data types
> - Apparently there are some ISPs in some countries that have started to bill
> people for IPV6 bandwidth, and the lack of IPV6 address types is hurting
> them.
Yeah. This is a pr
Linux.conf.au Report
The Linux.conf.au is an international Linux/Open Source event that attracts
lots of international speakers. Total conf attendance was around 360, maybe
even 400 I think.
Gavin Sherry was speaking at this particular conf, and I attended as a
hobbyist.
Po
37 matches
Mail list logo
