Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Curt Sampson
Subject Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Date
Msg-id Pine.NEB.4.51.0302030348330.509@angelic.cynic.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think I was the one who talked us into assuming that ipv4 and ipv6
> should be treated as a single protocol.  But some people have since made
> pretty good cases that it's better to regard them as separate protocols.

From a security standpoint, I think it's definitely better to regard
them as separate protocols. They are certainly separately filtered on
firewalls, and they are often routed differently, too.

That said, I see no reason not to have some sort of easy way of saying,
"listen on all the interfaces you can find using all the protocols you
know." So long as you have the ability to distinguish where you listen
by both protocol and address, it's easy to be as secure as you need to be.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org   Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight.  --XTC
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: COUNT and Performance ...
Next
From: Kurt Roeckx
Date:
Subject: Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report