Ipv6 support when

[UsmanTariq2]

I wanted to use Enet but i found a glaring issue of no ipv6 support.

Is this something in the works? I noticed ipv6 PRs , so whats going on.

[SirLynix]

There are plenty of enet forks with IPv6 support, here's mine: https://github.com/SirLynix/enet6 (also has nice to have in 2024 like encryption callbacks, separate timed out event and packet acknowledge callbacks)

[AlexMorningHill]

@SirLynix I've looked into these forks, and all have serious fundamental issues. For example, your own fork is missing the definition of ENET_HOST_ANY. That is ridiculous, it means almost no basic example code will even compile with your fork, meaning you didn't test it at all.

[SirLynix]

@SirLynix I've looked into these forks, and all have serious fundamental issues. For example, your own fork is missing the definition of ENET_HOST_ANY. That is ridiculous, it means almost no basic example code will even compile with your fork, meaning you didn't test it at all.

It's right there: https://github.com/SirLynix/enet6/blob/main/include%2Fenet6%2Fenet.h#L74 (see next comment)

My IPv6 fork went into production and was tested on all mainstream platforms, each commit also triggers the CI which tests compilation of the library and examples (which is how binaries are released).

So I guess you probably overlooked it.

[SirLynix]

Sorry @AlexMorningHill, though you were talking about another symbol.

ENET_HOST_ANY was intentionally removed along with other IPv4 integer defines and was replaced by functions such as enet_address_build_any, as you can see in the examples and in the README (see key differences).

So indeed you need to adjust a bit of your code to work with enet6, as explained in the README. I don't think it's really possible to make a IPv6 fork of enet without touching the API.

I can still assure you it was well compiled and tested on Windows, Linux, macOS, Android and iOS and is in fact used by some games and schools.

[AlexMorningHill]

@SirLynix Sorry that was excessive, but I was defending this maintainer because with so many dodgy forks/projects everywhere on github it's hard to know what's good/safe to use, and often maintainers or users will just run a fork with existing example code and then assume it's buggy if it doesn't work. Anyway I submitted a PR that allows some old examples to build. I think your fork could be completely backwards compatible with a few tweaks, it almost is as-is anyway.