-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
IPv6 compatibility #15
Comments
What would it take to support ipv6? Is this an issue in the underlying utp library or just due to this utp-native? Also I noticed that using IPV6 addresses causes the |
For the record, https://github.com/hyperswarm/libudx has full support for IPv6. |
@kasperisager how ready is libudx and why not make use of QUIC? |
It's been pretty stable for a while and is actively used in Hyperswarm. Compared to both TCP and QUIC, UDX is extremely simple, adding only a thin layer on top of UDP to provide reliable and ordered streams. |
It's all about P2P first. We need a transport that support holepunching at the core of it. That means traditional handshakes are out the window. It also means you need more flexibility about crypto, so you can run handshakes outside the ordered streams. UDX was born to solve this. Like @kasperisager said, it's simple, does what it needs to do (and does it fast!) and is not a quic replacement or anything like that - it's a p2p-first ordered stream library written in c. |
Interesting we were evaluating QUIC as a replacement. But do you have a roadmap for libudx? |
Would be nice to have IPv6 compatibility in order to use remote address formatted in that way as your own error tell us:
Thank you for your work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: