On 3/15/2011 4:42 AM, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Josh Fisher wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2011 5:15 AM, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The bacula-fd daemon (according to netstat -na) doesn't appear to be
>>>>> listening on the IPv6 address.
>>>> Force it to listen on whatever address/port you desire w/ "FDAddresses = "
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bacula.org/5.0.x-manuals/en/main/main/Client_File_daemon_Configur.html
>>> Thanks for the reply.  Is this considered a bug?  Admittedly not so many
>>> networks use IPv6 yet so I can imagine it might not be very high priority.
>> It seems you have a host name that resolves to both an IPv4 address and
>> an IPv6 address, no? So when DNS returns two addresses for that host
>> name, which one should be used? Should bacula-fd listen on the first
>> address returned, the second address returned, or both?
> I would guess both?  That's how dual-stacking is generally done so that
> IPv6 capable hosts can use the AAAA record but hosts which don't support
> IPv6 yet can still connect using the A record.
>
> In the normal way, I haven't tended to specify the name or address for the
> FD to listen on.  bacula-fd just binds to the available configured
> addresses (the v4 ones at any rate).  Is that not what people expect?
>
>> FDAddress is retained for backward compatibility. I believe you should
>> use FDAddresses for IPv6 and/or multi-homed machines.
> Surely defining the address at all is optional, no?
>
>> Try using something like:
>>       FDAddresses {
>>          ip = {
>>             addr = hostname
>>          }
>>       }
>>
>> The ip keyword of FDAddresses allows selection of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
>>
>> An alternative solution that will work with both Bacula, and any other
>> software that may not be as configurable as Bacula, is to assign
>> different host names for the IPv6 network than are assigned for the IPv4
>> network. That removes the ambiguity, although I still think you will
>> have to use the FDAddresses directive as opposed to the FDAddress
>> directive. The older FDAddress directive may not support IPv6.
> I'd been using FDAddresses alright, but would prefer to just have bacula-fd
> bind to the available addresses.  Is that not a good idea?  I guess the
> above hostname-based directive isn't too bad.

Indeed, not specifying either FDAddress or FDAddresses should listen on 
all available addresses. In the Linux client, it does. For the 3.x 
version of the Windows client, it was known that it could connect to an 
IPv6 address, but could not listen on an IPv6 address. Not a bug, 
exactly, it simply wasn't implemented. I was under the impression that 
it was added in the 5.x versions, or at least was worked on in 2010. But 
maybe not. Does anyone know for certain?

> There is a potential race condition of sorts in that where you use router
> advertisements, a host may not immediately pick up its IPv6 address at boot
> time so when the bacula-fd service is started, the IPv6 address might not
> yet be configured.  That said, I restarted bacula-fd with the IPv6 address
> configured and bacula-fd still didn't bind to it.
>
> Gavin
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users