2017-01-27 10:10 GMT+01:00 Konrad Rosenbaum <kon...@silmor.de>: > Hi Thiago, > > On Fri, January 27, 2017 04:49, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > If it is IPv4, the priority for your issue has just dropped to the floor. > > I > > won't debug IPv4 multicast on Windows, on principle. > > > I will review IPv4 patches, but I will not lift a finger to test them. > > I'm not sure whether this argument is persuasive for you: industry will > stay on IPv4 private networks (192.168.*, 10.*, 172.16.*, etc.) for a LONG > time. The networks are working, the infrastructure is known to every admin > out there, and lots of software has problems with IPv6 if it supports it > at all! > > In fact quite a few of my colleagues will not recognize 2001:db8::42 as a > valid IP address... > > In short: IPv4 (including multicast, which is used for "message buses") > has to work well for the foreseeable future. Even on an OS that we both > would not recommend for production use... ;-) > > agree, +1 David
> > Konrad > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
