Re: Standards (was Back to Merkle Hash Trees...)

> 
> 
> Justin Cormack wrote:
> 
> > 3. Parts of the protocol are not ipv6 compliant (note to implementors: just
> > say no to compact=1). This is not acceptable in an RFC.
> 
> The tracker admins that save heaps and heaps of bandwidth from that
> extension disagree with you there.  The fact is it's not a very well
> thought out extension that has no means of coping with ipv6, but ipv6
> support is nowhere in the current BT protocol so it doesn't matter.  The
> bandwidth savings however are significant, and there are lots of
> trackers that won't talk to a client that doesn't support "compact"
> because of this.

a. I have never found a tracker that wont let me connect without compact=1
but I am sure things like that happen on the wilder shores of BT usage. I
dont mind if people do these things, but I dont think it is necessary, and
my main point is that it would not be accepted in an RFC.

b. ipv6 support is in the current protocol, it works fine. I have tested
downloads from ipv6 clients through an ipv6 tracker check out
http://6net.iif.hu/index.php?mn=3&sm=10&lg=en
The problem is mixing ipv6 and ipv4.

Justin
 


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/