[17498] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Proposed platform assumption changes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Russ Allbery)
Tue Jan 31 21:13:00 2012
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: "krbdev\@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <EDBAA316-FD91-47B5-BF55-5DDC2FCA7855@jpl.nasa.gov> (Henry
B. Hotz's message of "Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:08:06 -0800")
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:12:57 -0800
Message-ID: <87r4yfs3me.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:09 AM, krbdev-request@mit.edu wrote:
>> * POSIX signals, IPv6, and thread support have become ubiquitous on
>> platforms people are likely to build krb5 on. We can reduce
>> complexity (particularly in network code by assuming IPv6) by
>> assuming these features.
> I'm guessing this is a distinction without a difference, but IPv6
> support is widespread in OSs, NOT widespread on production networks
> (yet).
Yeah, I assume that what "assuming IPv6" here means is assuming that you
have getaddrinfo, getnameinfo, AF_INET6, inet_pton, and related things,
and don't need to write a bunch of configure machinery and glue to handle
the case where that stuff isn't there.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
