eMTee: I think that *nix systems shouldn't be any problem. But I will
try it under Ubuntu to be 100% sure.
Tehnick: yes, conversions are simple. There is also IN6ADDR_SETV4MAPPED
function to simplify that. But I think that adding and removing
":::" prefix from IP addresses should be fine.
arn
Merge authors:
Jacek Sieka (arnetheduck)
revno: 2584 [merge]
committer: Jacek Sieka
branch nick: dcplusplus
timestamp: Thu 2011-08-04 11:57:32 +0200
message:
Play with ipv6, merge bundle undo (forgot =)
modified:
dcpp/AdcHub.cpp
The core will be opting for b) probably - but I'm doing for educative
reasons to see how complicated it turns out...
In any case, it has a few advantages such as making it easier to connect
through ipv4&6 in parallell and see which one connects faster instead of
trying ipv6 first and then v4 (it s
>From my point of view (developer's opinion) we should use method a). And
in the case when OS doesn't support hybrid dual-stack, program should
work with IPv4 only. But it should work fine. So users with old
operation systems will not have one feature, but they will be able to
take part in file sha
a) with IPv6 completly disabled in XP is the obivious choice. But what
about *nix? Would this method be usable there?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Dcplusplus-team, which is a bug assignee.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/309402
Title:
ipv6 support
Status i
IPv6 support in StrongDC++ is now almost ready - IPv4/IPv6 connections
to hubs work, connections between users work correctly too. But there
are two possible implementations and each one has its advantages and
disadvantages. Now I have to choose one of them:
a) hybrid dual-stack
+ just one IPv6 so
6 matches
Mail list logo
