This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author Paul Marks
Recipients Carlos.Ralli, Paul Marks, andreasr, berker.peksag, dazhaoyu, gregory.p.smith, jleedev, martin.panter, neologix, r.david.murray
Date 2016-08-03.03:54:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> if the user specifically wants to bind to a numeric IPv4 address, is there any advantage of choosing the dual-stack [...]?

If you're in a position to write AF_INET6-only code, then dualstack sockets can make things a bit cleaner (one family for all IP communication).  But given that Python couldn't reasonably drop support for AF_INET-only systems, there's not a compelling reason to prefer dualstack sockets for IPv4 stuff.

They're just two windows into the same kernel code, so the decision is mostly arbitrary.

However, Python likes to expose IP addresses as plain strings without transparent ::ffff: handling, which tends to make dualstack sockets a leaky abstraction.  Ideally, you'd be able to talk to the kernel using AF_INET or AF_INET6 without normal users knowing the difference.
Date User Action Args
2016-08-03 03:54:38Paul Markssetrecipients: + Paul Marks, gregory.p.smith, r.david.murray, neologix, berker.peksag, martin.panter, jleedev, dazhaoyu, andreasr, Carlos.Ralli
2016-08-03 03:54:38Paul Markssetmessageid: <>
2016-08-03 03:54:38Paul Markslinkissue20215 messages
2016-08-03 03:54:37Paul Markscreate