nanog mailing list archives
Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:06:18 -0700
On 10/21/10 2:59 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White <dwhite () olp net> wrote:On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that PostgreSQL is in a similar situation.I don't know when PostgreSQL first supported IPv6, but it works just fine. I just fired up a stock FreeBSD 8.1 system and built the Postgres 8.4 port with no changes, and viola:All this is pretty moot point if you run a localized copy of your database (mysql or postgres) and connect via unix domains sockets.True. It mostly affects shared/smaller hosting providers who have customers that want direct access to the database remotely over the public network (and don't want to use some local admin tool such as phpMyAdmin).
linux/unix machines can trivially build ip-tunnels of several flavors.
-brandon
Current thread:
- ipv6 vs. LAMP Christopher McCrory (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Leo Bicknell (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Dan White (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Brandon Galbraith (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Oct 22)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Scott Reed (Oct 22)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Aaron Glenn (Oct 22)
- Message not available
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Oct 23)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Dan White (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 21)