[131259] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Oct 21 18:09:58 2010
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:06:18 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Ce50uQs+dmMJnCUYmFs3ZQy7jg7UXCRq51gzd@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/21/10 2:59 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White <dwhite@olp.net> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>>> In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
>>> McCrory wrote:
>>>
>>>> open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
>>>> PostgreSQL is in a similar situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know when PostgreSQL first supported IPv6, but it works just
>>> fine. I just fired up a stock FreeBSD 8.1 system and built the Postgres
>>> 8.4 port with no changes, and viola:
>>>
>>
>> All this is pretty moot point if you run a localized copy of your database
>> (mysql or postgres) and connect via unix domains sockets.
>>
>>
> True. It mostly affects shared/smaller hosting providers who have customers
> that want direct access to the database remotely over the public network
> (and don't want to use some local admin tool such as phpMyAdmin).
linux/unix machines can trivially build ip-tunnels of several flavors.
> -brandon
>
