--
Actually, it's not a 'bug' really, it's because you now kinda have 2 IP stacks combined into one, as far as the protocol goes.
[::] is equivelant to 0.0.0.0, or [::ffff:0.0.0.0].
Coherently so, [::] is 127.0.0.1, [::1], 192.168.0.1, and [2001::1] (or whatever your interface IP's are) because where IPv4 addresses are valid in IPv6, they are applied and bound as IPv6.
[::ffff:127.0.0.1], and [::ffff:192.168.0.1]. These are both valid IPv6 addresses. Now, they bind to IPv4 addresses, and so, trying to bind AGAIN with the IPv4 method 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1 is really trying to bind the port all over again. It was already bound when you bound [::]
How do you get around this? Well, you could bind to the independant IP addresses, or if you really want to bind every interface, simply bind to [::] and take confidence in the fact your IPv4 is bound along with it.
Cheers!
--Daniel F. O'Neill
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:19:10 +0000 (GMT), Philip Hazel <ph10@???> ×ÙÛÅÕÐÏÍÑÎÕÔÙÊ:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> > You probably mean the USAGI patches.
> >
> > > Looks great except that exim didn't start.
> >
> > Known bug, corrected in the development version, fix will be in the
> > next release.
>
> If anybody wants the patch for 4.12, I can supply it (rather too long to
> post).
>
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]
--
