From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4301
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Strake <strake888@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in resolv.conf
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:18:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL3m8eCDrpPdDD3L1fFmV=tsx2dyKDYnGi6nCdW=M_Z+Z5hZQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <761df492-c2ee-41d5-84f8-faef313164bf@email.android.com>
	<20131129174410.GD24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<20131130003704.GL24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1385774309 3411 80.91.229.3 (30 Nov 2013 01:18:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-4305-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Nov 30 02:18:33 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-4305-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-4305-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1VmZCa-00081c-MD
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:18:32 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 5373 invoked by uid 550); 30 Nov 2013 01:18:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 5365 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2013 01:18:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=0v9+G9tQaNRrgotiEWYrvi/OCFiHkRR2DzGzcW+faYk=;
        b=k9szteJZpKeejfmuqWgW4LzO1Nw+4eN5ig0zQIXe5skFYuo9Rp4LAIS/YEQ6y2L0kF
         VMR5CXb67b82qeRpUq6Dygo4xOwMuqxOoDQSM63Ix0oSUqpKcJanqeduAQKegWXK9dX+
         iuEYAUyWZqmIOqQW/+6mY5q2IgngI02/WrsPQNO4iOXqIG+xOeaPyqm6r6FTZUplG9H8
         3wv+hsvP8xMtRi7Ye6EZVL0kLjXqY0+8PxRqjaz01a6gNPMMBacZpMNG7ZhwQDK+Qj3c
         bWLEWFUWJrHv8ZA5NIDuBl3dVu2ZN92jHOwc+MJ7r8c6yoPgVdTT3AReL+sqsZ1eWW50
         IYQw==
X-Received: by 10.180.90.141 with SMTP id bw13mr9046350wib.40.1385774300504;
 Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:18:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131130003704.GL24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4301
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4301>

On 29/11/2013, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> What I think would be the correct behavior is noting whether any v6
> addresses are seen, and if so, converting the v4 addresses to
> v4-mapped v6 addresses and using IPv6 for all communication. Does this
> sound reasonable?

It would be simpler to just always convert to v6.