Apr 29, 2024, 13:34 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>
> Le 29 avril 2024 13:32:41 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
> >Apr 29, 2024, 11:56 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 29 avril 2024 11:20:24 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>>>
> >They were they deprecated?
>
> They caused more bugs than they
Le 29 avril 2024 13:32:41 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>Apr 29, 2024, 11:56 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 29 avril 2024 11:20:24 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>>
>They were they deprecated?
They caused more bugs than they solved problems (because what we need is
to add IPv6
Apr 29, 2024, 11:56 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>
> Le 29 avril 2024 11:20:24 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>
>>> >They were they deprecated?
>>>
>>> They caused more bugs than they solved problems (because what we need is to
>>> add IPv6 to IPv4 apps, not IPv4 to IPv6 apps).
>>>
> >What bugs did they
Le 29 avril 2024 11:20:24 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>> >They were they deprecated?
>>
>> They caused more bugs than they solved problems (because what we need is to
>> add IPv6 to IPv4 apps, not IPv4 to IPv6 apps).
>>
>
>What bugs did they cause?
Obviously anything that assumes IPv6
Apr 29, 2024, 09:34 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>
> Le 28 avril 2024 23:11:48 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
> >Apr 28, 2024, 20:15 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>>> Le torstaina 11. huhtikuuta 2024, 10.50.01 EEST Lynne a écrit :
>>>
Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped
in IPv6
Le 28 avril 2024 23:11:48 GMT+03:00, Lynne a écrit :
>Apr 28, 2024, 20:15 by r...@remlab.net:
>
>> Le torstaina 11. huhtikuuta 2024, 10.50.01 EEST Lynne a écrit :
>>
>>> Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped
>>> in IPv6 and just use the IPv6 API everywhere?
>>>
>>
>>
On 2024-04-28 2:15 p.m., Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le torstaina 11. huhtikuuta 2024, 10.50.01 EEST Lynne a écrit :
Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped
in IPv6 and just use the IPv6 API everywhere?
IPv6-mapped IPv4 addresses are pretty much deprecated, if supported
Apr 28, 2024, 20:15 by r...@remlab.net:
> Le torstaina 11. huhtikuuta 2024, 10.50.01 EEST Lynne a écrit :
>
>> Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped
>> in IPv6 and just use the IPv6 API everywhere?
>>
>
> IPv6-mapped IPv4 addresses are pretty much deprecated, if supported
Le torstaina 11. huhtikuuta 2024, 10.50.01 EEST Lynne a écrit :
> Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped
> in IPv6 and just use the IPv6 API everywhere?
IPv6-mapped IPv4 addresses are pretty much deprecated, if supported anymore.
Some people consider them insecure. But
This message has been marked as Public on 04/11/2024 07:58Z.
On Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:50 AM Lynne wrote:
> Is there a reason why we can't switch to IPv4 addresses mapped in IPv6 and
> just use the IPv6 API everywhere?
I'm not the person to give you that answer.
My guess is that due to API
Apr 11, 2024, 09:45 by lazar.ignjato...@cubic.com:
> avformat: enable UDP IPv6 multicast interface selection using zone index
>
> Enabled IPv6 interface selection using zone index. Properly resolved
> interface index in places where default 0 interface index is used
> (marked with TODO: within
avformat: enable UDP IPv6 multicast interface selection using zone index
Enabled IPv6 interface selection using zone index. Properly resolved
interface index in places where default 0 interface index is used
(marked with TODO: within udp.c). Adjusted binding for multicast sockets
that are used
avformat: enable UDP IPv6 multicast interface selection using zone index
Enabled IPv6 interface selection using zone index. Properly resolved
interface index in places where default 0 interface index is used
(marked with TODO: within udp.c). Adjusted binding for multicast sockets
that are used
Le perjantaina 22. maaliskuuta 2024, 12.16.30 EET Ignjatović, Lazar (RS) a
écrit :
> This message has been marked as Public on 03/22/2024 10:16Z.
>
> On Friday, March 22, 2024 10:55 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > So why are you arguing now?
>
> Because I still belive that using localaddr is
This message has been marked as Public on 03/22/2024 10:16Z.
On Friday, March 22, 2024 10:55 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> So why are you arguing now?
Because I still belive that using localaddr is the better approach.
However, I will create and submit v3 of this patch and also create
another
Le 22 mars 2024 11:31:28 GMT+02:00, "Ignjatović, Lazar (RS)"
a écrit :
>>> I've compared ffmpeg 5.1.2 against my MR on IPv6 multicast. Here are
>>> the
>>> results:
>>
>> I don't care. That does not make your MR any less counter-sensical.
>
>If I may cite Marton Balint
I am not answerable for
>> I've compared ffmpeg 5.1.2 against my MR on IPv6 multicast. Here are
>> the
>> results:
>
> I don't care. That does not make your MR any less counter-sensical.
If I may cite Marton Balint
```
d3bda871f033be4825ecb69d444b3396bf2a2eb7
avformat/udp: specify the local address for some source
Le torstaina 21. maaliskuuta 2024, 15.01.09 EET Ignjatović, Lazar (RS) a écrit
:
> > Your MR makes even less sense for multicast. For multicast there is no
> > local address to match to an interface. So you just have to have the
> > interface specified explicitly in addition to the LL group
> Your MR makes even less sense for multicast. For multicast there is no local
> address to match to an interface. So you just have to have the interface
> specified explicitly in addition to the LL group address. This is true for
> both egress and ingress.
I've compared ffmpeg 5.1.2 against
Le 20 mars 2024 14:35:28 GMT+02:00, "Ignjatović, Lazar (RS)"
a écrit :
> Specifying egress interface is done by setting the
> setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to the value of the interface, not address. On
> the other hand v4 for the similar option setsockopt(IP_MULTICAST_IF) sets it
> by
This message has been marked as Public on 03/20/2024 12:35Z.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 1:18 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> In all other cases, determining the interface ID by address should be
>> ok,
>
> No! The only other case is non-LL addressing, which does not require link ID
> at all.
Le 20 mars 2024 13:45:10 GMT+02:00, "Ignjatović, Lazar (RS)"
a écrit :
>
>This message has been marked as Public on 03/20/2024 11:45Z.
>On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:30 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
>> You're not supposed to guess the link ID from the local address. This is
>>
This message has been marked as Public on 03/20/2024 11:45Z.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:30 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> You're not supposed to guess the link ID from the local address. This is
> counter-sensical. And it's entirely possible to have the same LL address
> assigned to two
Le 20 mars 2024 13:09:15 GMT+02:00, "Ignjatović, Lazar (RS)"
a écrit :
>
>This message has been marked as Public on 03/20/2024 11:09Z.
>On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:51 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
>> Same fundamental problem as previous version, AFAICT.
>>
>> -1
>
>Would you mind being
This message has been marked as Public on 03/20/2024 11:09Z.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:51 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Same fundamental problem as previous version, AFAICT.
>
> -1
Would you mind being more specific?
There are 2 problems you pointed out, one about SO_BINDTODEVICE, and
Same fundamental problem as previous version, AFAICT.
-1
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject
avformat: enable UDP IPv6 multicast interface selection
localaddr option now properly works with IPv6 addresses. Properly
resolved interface index in places where default 0 interface index is
used (marked with TODO: within udp.c). Adjusted binding for multicast
sockets that are used for reading
27 matches
Mail list logo
