Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 95383 invoked by uid 500); 6 Dec 2000 17:50:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 95338 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 17:50:01 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: adsl-77-241-65.rdu.bellsouth.net: trawick set sender to trawickj@bellsouth.net using -f Sender: trawick@bellsouth.net To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: IPv6 notes References: From: Jeff Trawick Date: 06 Dec 2000 12:45:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: rbb@covalent.net's message of "Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:54:36 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 45 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N rbb@covalent.net writes: > > 1) listen and vhost directives and internal structures need to > > allow IPv4 or IPv6 addresses > > > > Listen and NameVirtualHost change from TAKE1 to TAKE12 so that > > the port can be provided as a separate parm when the host is > > an IPv6 numeric address string (what the fsck is "fe80::1:81" > > -- fe80::1 with port 81 or fe80::1:81 with the default port?) > > I thought that about a year ago we talked about using > [ip_addr]:port. That may or may not be correct, but it is an idea. While "[ip_addr]:port" is uglier IMHO, it seems reasonable to me to use it throughout since it works in all contexts. I'll double check on the KAME mailing list to see if there is any magic justification for using the TAKE12 style instead. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > APR todos: > > > > 1) apr_snprintf() and friends... > > > > maybe... I don't see any code in Apache 1.3 or Apache 2.0 which uses this. > > The KAME folks use it in their modifications to http_vhost.c. > > > > Change %pI to take struct sockaddr * instead of just struct > > sockaddr_in *. > > This should change to take an apr_sockaddr_t regardless, shouldn't > it? that sounds reasonable > > 2) is David's double reverse lookup routine in APR yet? > > Nope. yeah; that was just a hint :) -- Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...