[cvsnt] ipv6 handling in cvsnt is broken
arthur.barrett at march-hare.com
Tue Nov 11 19:06:14 GMT 2008
I appreciate your time and effort on this - however if you just slow down a little and explain things a little clearer we'll be able to make much more use of the information being supplied.
> > Again. You're trying to claim something is broken that
> > I use every day.
> You don't use it in a way that triggers brokeness.
You need to explain more clearly what that is.
Are you running *only* IPv6, which we've already stated is not currently supported?
Now if you want to go through and get the whole stack to work on IPv6 (without breaking the current behaviour - particularly on HPUX 11iv1) then that'd be really really appreciated. We don't support a pure IPv6 stack at the moment simply because we've not had the time and resources or motivation to do it.
> Show me how to connect to it using cvsnt client by
> specifing IPv6 address (+ port) and not hostname please.
Err, no - you show me? I wouldn't know an IPv6 address if I fell over it.
If anything I think you've found a documentation error - that parameter is for a hostname and port, addresses are partly supported for our own internal purposes but we do not intend to ever support addresses in that parameter.
Again if you want to amend the code and provide a patch...
> > Please read http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/BugReporting and
> > provide all the information requested.
> cvslockd binding issue - forget about it (works for me
> now with that little patch)
Which you will need to keep re-applying - why not just answer the question? We can't apply a patch which is going to break every platform except yours. If I knew what platform you were running and if the native compiler for that platform has a standard platform #define then at least I could apply the patch with a #if defined (some-obscure-platform) around your patch so that you don't need to keep re-applying.
> [ipv6]:port issue - what do you need more beside
> what's in this thread?
Have you read the page Tony sent you? Originality, Reproducibility, Specificity and Examples.
In particular what operating system are you running and how is it configured so these problems occur?
> This itself is not a fix but a change that makes stable
> behaviour - IPv6 separate from IPv4 (ipv6 is handled
> via one socket, ipv4 is handled via second socet)
Is this what your fix *does* or is this a fix your are proposing to provide a patch for?
> CSocketIO::bind() also does weird thing - it assumes that
> single succeeded bind is "enough". It's not. There are
> various errors (other that IPv6 with IPV6_V6ONLY being
> default off type of tcp stack) where bind can fail and
> these errors are just siletnly ignored.
Care to submit a patch?
More information about the cvsnt