[tahoe-dev] [tahoe-lafs] #867: use ipv6

[Randall Mason]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <kpneal at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Randall Mason wrote:
> >
> >    Yea, like I said, I don't know what it does, but I do agree that an
> >    order would be a good idea.  I may have to do a good job of sorting
> >    addresses as: v6 from most "local" to most "remote" then v4 from most
> >    local to remote.  The other option would be to prefer local over
> remote
> >    and then prefer IPv6 over IPv4.
> >
> >
>  ipv6:[::1],ipv6:[fe80::],ipv6:[2001::],ipv4:127.0.0.1,ipv4:169.254.x.x,
> >    ipv4:192.168.1.1,ipv4:1.1.1.1
> >
> >    or
> >
> >
>  ipv6:[::1],ipv4:127.0.0.1,ipv6:[fe80::],ipv4:169.254.x.x,ipv4:192.168.1
> >    .1,ipv6:[2001::],ipv4:1.1.1.1
>
> Is there really a need to restate the protocol next to the address? The
> two address formats (dotted quad vs colons) are different enough that it
> should already be clear which is which. Just curious.
>
The discussion happened for that here: [Foolscap 155](
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/155).  It's more about making things
easier to be backward compatible and future proof than "needing" it for
future.  This has nothing to do with my changes and foolscap is more a part
of Twisted than it is part of Tahoe-LAFS, even if Brian Warner is a main
figure behind both.  It is stated that foolscap changes should be discussed
on the Twisted mailing list.  We're using Foolscap to abstract away
networking from us and because of that we don't need to worry about this
type of thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20130216/6ab721a8/attachment.html>