| To: | Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] IPv6 For libpcp_pmda |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 21 May 2013 18:30:17 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <519BB528.5040009@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <51911381.2060600@xxxxxxxxxx> <152876642.1184024.1368503522352.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <519BB528.5040009@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | ZzGl4taTnX9Eao/VNf6Z8lq5l3bxMA== |
| Thread-topic: | IPv6 For libpcp_pmda |
Hi Dave, ----- Original Message ----- > On 05/13/2013 11:52 PM, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > The PMDA/PMCD relationship is quite a bit different to the client/pmcd > > relationship - its one-to-one (noone else will be communicating on this > > channel) and is much more controlled. So, I don't think opening ports > > for both ipv6 and inet is warranted in the PMDA case, and this should > > simplify things. Back-compatibility is required, and this ipv6 option > > should be available transparently to all PMDAs that support sockets. > As posted to the project list, I've added a -6 option to pmdaGetOpt() > for requesting an IPv6 socket. Should I go ahead and a "6:" to the > option strings of all the callers as well? Sounds right. Usage messages and man pages will also be affected. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] IPv6 For libpcp_pmda, Dave Brolley |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] PCP Updates: IPv6 for libpcp_pmda, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] IPv6 For libpcp_pmda, Dave Brolley |
| Next by Thread: | pcp updates: qa, nss bugfix, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |