Skip to content
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

Add IPv6 ClientConfig flag #265

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

hetelek
Copy link

@hetelek hetelek commented Jun 4, 2022

Adds a IPv6 flag to the turn.ClientConfig, which will allow for IPv6 relay support.

pion/ice#462

@Sean-Der
Copy link
Member

Sean-Der commented Jun 4, 2022

@jech

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 4, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #265 (801873f) into master (a4f7706) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #265      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.05%   68.12%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          38       38              
  Lines        2432     2438       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits         1655     1661       +6     
+ Misses        643      642       -1     
- Partials      134      135       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
go 68.12% <66.66%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
wasm 45.91% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
client.go 71.42% <66.66%> (+0.44%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a4f7706...801873f. Read the comment docs.

@jech
Copy link
Member

jech commented Jun 8, 2022

@hetelek could you please explain why this is needed? Why is it not enough to infer the address family from ClientConfig.Conn, using something like:

network := config.Conn.LocalAddr().Network()

This would avoid adding a new API, and would give us more flexibility in the future if we decide that this is not the right approach.

If an explicit field is needed, I'd prefer it to be called Network and to be either a string or an int rather than a simple boolean, in case more values are needed in the future.

@stv0g stv0g mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2022
@stv0g
Copy link
Member

stv0g commented Jan 12, 2023

This PR gets obsoleted if #276 gets merged.

@stv0g
Copy link
Member

stv0g commented Apr 19, 2023

#276 has been merged. I therefore close this PR.

@stv0g stv0g closed this Apr 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants