On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:37:50 -0500 Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the status of the AFS protocol support for IPv6? What remains to > be done? A new type needs to be defined to handle general "addresses" (in place of the current 32-bit ints). There was some work done on that to see what such a thing would look like (the thread "Encoding IPvN addreses"), but in those discussions I believe we agreed that we wanted to use extended unions for those, for which the most recent draft is here: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03>. That draft has only one pending change as far as I'm aware (a max length for unknown legs). We could probably start talking about the "address" type in more detail again; I think how ext-union works in general has enough consensus for it not to change too drastically. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
