On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 21:38 +0800, sipxuser sipx wrote:
> Is the IPv6 support in planning? We're not planning not to do v6 support. :-) Like any priority decision, this one depends mostly on the opportunity cost - what we can't do because we're doing IPv6 instead. Feedback on _why_ IPv6 is important - most especially on what opportunities it creates that we could not exploit otherwise - is what will drive those priority decisions. I'd be surprised if IPv6 made it to the high-priority list for 4.2, but the geek in me would love to have an excuse... > > And is it troublesome to add IPv6 support by myself? Anyone has any > > tips? I expect that it's going to be one of those very large jobs that consists of hundreds (no, I am not exaggerating) of little jobs. There will be many many places where v4 is implicitly assumed. Certainly we'll need the OsSocket (and derivative) classes to be worked over, and URL parsing, and lots of host comparisons. Very likely the right thing to do is to create a new abstract IpAddress class and concrete IPv4Address and IPv6Address classes from those for starters. The hardest part by far is going to be to come up with a regression test infrastructure that supports IPv6, and expanding the interoperability testing of clients to include IPv6. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
