-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Failed to bind to '::/[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0]:5076'. #130
Comments
Managed to code a workaround:
It's interesting that the InetSocketAddress call returns an ipv6 address given ipv6 is disabled on the host and I note that the error doesn't occur if I run the examples in (eg exampleJava/exampleClient). The difference I note is that in my code we actually do some calls to connect to CA channels using the CAJ library and if one steps through the InetSocketAddress code, the init code below (from InetAddress.java) is called first via CAJ:
and the impl instance is set to Inet6AddressImpl. Whereas in the example this code is first called from the pvAccess library and impl is set to Inet4AddressImpl. So what is the difference? How is ipv6 suppressed in the example code? And why, when CAJ executes this code first, ipv6 is enabled? |
Can you try to run the existing code with |
After upgrading to openjdk 19.0.2, my code that uses pvAccessJava 5.1.7 fails when trying to
channelProvider = ChannelProviderRegistryFactory.getChannelProviderRegistry().getProvider(ClientFactory.PROVIDER_NAME);
this throws a ConnectionException with message "Failed to bind to '::/[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0]:5076'." The call stack is:
ClientContextImpl.initializeUDPTransport:482
ClientContextImpl.internalInitialize:408
ClientContextImpl.initialize:372
GhostClientFactory$GhostChannelProviderFactoryImpl.sharedInstance:43
ChannelProviderRegistryFactory$ChannelProviderRegistryImpl.getProvider:51
The same code works fine with openjdk 17.0.2 and earlier (using same host environment). My host OS is MacOS Ventura 13.2 on a MacBook Pro 14 M2 - so the architecture is aarch64.
Anyone else seen this?
Thanks Peter
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: