Skip to content

Add ipv6 support (DO NOT MERGE YET)#25

Closed
nojb wants to merge 2 commits into
mirage:masterfrom
nojb:master
Closed

Add ipv6 support (DO NOT MERGE YET)#25
nojb wants to merge 2 commits into
mirage:masterfrom
nojb:master

Conversation

@nojb
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nojb nojb commented Nov 18, 2014

See mirage/mirage-tcpip#70 and mirage/mirage#319. I did just enough to be able to run the cohttp examples over ipv6.

Right now you are forced to listen for connections over both IPv4 and IPv6 together (see function serve). We can fix this by making the type of mode have variants TCPv4 of int and TCPv6 of int.

@avsm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

avsm commented Jan 27, 2015

Would you have a rebased version of this for the latest tree?

@nojb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

nojb commented Jan 28, 2015

I can rebase but this would require to have STACKV6 in mirage-tcpip (and a corresponding signature in mirage-types), which used to exist but not anymore. If you want to, I can revive STACKV6 and then rebase this to get it back into working shape.

@samoht samoht mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2015
@samoht
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

samoht commented Mar 23, 2015

This PR would be better solved if we manage to get a V1_LWT.STACK module in mirage-types. cc/ @nojb do you still have patches laying around for that?

@nojb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

nojb commented Mar 23, 2015

Do you mean V1_LWT.STACK to be a common signature for a stack that handles either V4 or V6 ? or a stack that handles both V4 and V6 ? I think both would be easy to do. The reason I didn't move forward with this patch is that the current STACKV4 seems to be very much in need of a redesign, and duplicating its functionality for the V6 version (under either of the above escenarios) didn't seem a very good idea.

Having said that, I have the code somewhere because I needed it in order to get mirage-www working over IPv6, so I could revive it if you want ...

@samoht
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

samoht commented Mar 23, 2015

Do you mean V1_LWT.STACK to be a common signature for a stack that handles either V4 or V6

yea. I agree that the STACKV4 needs a complete redesign, I think all options (either, both or redesign) are ok and are better than merging this pull request (as it adds again one new argument to the functor).

@samoht samoht force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 146d013 to 84179f7 Compare November 6, 2016 17:11
@ansiwen
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ansiwen commented Nov 24, 2018

What's the status of this? It never got merged or closed.
And what is the status of IPv6 in general? Is there a conduit that supports IPv6? From reading all the conversations of different pull requests regarding IPv6 I'm a bit lost. :-)

@nojb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

nojb commented Nov 24, 2018

This was written as a quick hack to test the IPv6 implementation in mirage-tcpip some time ago, it is most surely in need of updating, maybe of a complete rewrite.

As for the status of IPv6, there is an implementation of it in mirage-tcpip (probably needing more testing) but AFAIK it is not integrated into the rest of the Mirage infrastructure (the STACK implementation, conduit, etc.)

@nojb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

nojb commented May 15, 2020

Not relevant anymore.

@nojb nojb closed this May 15, 2020
@dinosaure
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yes, due to the ability to define by yourself the type 'edn, it's possible to return an IPv6. Then, a protocol which handles IPv6 must exists (such the tcp/ip UNIX stack).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants