Re: IPv6 and compact tracker response

--- In [email protected], "Paulo S Silva Jr" 
<mstrcontrol@y...> wrote:
> 
> Greetings Programs,
> 
> --- In [email protected], "jaxe02" <jaxe02@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > While the "peers_ipv6" idea seems imho reasonable, I've got a few
> > comments on the last part of your proposal:
> > -RFC2553 is now obsoleted by RFC3493;
> 
> Thanks. I had not seen the obsolescence of RFC2553 (it's not 
listed 
> as obsolete at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc-obsolete.html).
> 
> > -IPv4-mapped addresses (the ones like ::FFFF:x.y.w.z) should 
never 
> go
> > on the wire: they are used for internal representation only, to 
> handle
> > an IPv4 address in the IPv6 stack;
> > -IPv4-compatible addresses (another class of IPv6 addresses with
> > embedded IPv4 addresses, which look like ::x.y.w.z) are used for 
> the
> > automatic tunneling mechanism (which is going to be deprecated), 
> so I
> > don't think they are ok for the use you suggest either.
> > 
> > So I would not use the "peers_ipv6" key to convey IPv4 peer
> > information - besides, from my point of view, we could simply go 
on
> > using the "peers" key to announce peers with IPv6 addresses too,
> > leaving to the client the task of discriminating between IPv4 
and 
> IPv6
> > addresses they receive.
> > 
> 
> OK... let's try to wrap it up for good:
> - "peers"      : List of IPv4 addresses ONLY ( 6 bytes each)
> - "peers_ipv6" : List of IPv6 addresses ONLY (14 bytes each)
sorry peersipv6 has 18 bytes each
> 
> > My 2 cents...
> > LF
> 
> Regards,
> Paulo
> 
> PS: I've posted an explanation of the tracker protocol at 
> http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentTrackerProtocol and would 
> appreciate very much your commets.





 
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/