[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] Make http.c IPv6-ready

[Mark Michelson]

> On 2010-10-29 14:15:23, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > /trunk/main/http.c, line 1052
> > <https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/986/diff/1/?file=12765#file12765line1052>
> >
> >     s/v->name/v->value/

Good catch!


- Mark


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/986/#review2860
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-10-29 12:48:30, Mark Michelson wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/986/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-10-29 12:48:30)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This patch allows for IPv6 addresses to be used when configuring the HTTP server in Asterisk.
> 
> There is a behavior change here as well. Since ast_sockaddr_resolve() returns an array of addresses, we'll iterate over the addresses returned until we're able to properly start the server. Adding logic to fail back to a cached address was not added, as the scope of that is quite different.
> 
> I rewrote a good portion of the configuration-loading function, so when reviewing, be sure that I haven't introduced any subtle behavior changes. As a side note, it would be awesome if we could just get rid of any "bindport" options, but I know that would be hard to wrangle :)
> 
> As a side note, I noticed an odd inconsistency regarding setting the TLS and non-TLS bind addresses. The non-TLS bind address can be a hostname, but the TLS one cannot be, because it uses the built-in option parsing in tcptls.c. I did not address this because I did not want the scope of my changes to be too broad.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/main/http.c 292864 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/986/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> None. I'm not in a position at the moment to be able to test very thoroughly.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> 
>