Re: RPC and IPv6

[Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk at suse dot de>]

On Fri, May 31, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 00:42, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> 
> > No, I never said this. I wrote that we would break the protocol if we
> > would add IPv6 support to the current sunrpc code as we tried in the 
> > past. ti-rpc speaks the old and the new protocol.
> 
> Then what you say makes even less sense.  There is no reason to give up
> our well-proven implementation for the old protocol.  It can be get
> despite what you said.  You just have to add the new code. 

According to your emails from this morning you don't wish to see 2
implementations of the RPC code. So this is impossible.

> > That's the reason for using ti-rpc instead of hacking sunrpc: With
> > ti-rpc we don't have the protocol incompatibilities we would introduce
> > with a hacked sunrpc version.
> 
> This is complete nonsense.  If ti-rpc can be compatible there is no
> reason why an extension of the existing implementation cannot be, too.

I think you should really look deeper at the problem before you
continues to write "complete nonsense" without knowing about what
you are speaking.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG        Deutschherrnstr. 15-19        D-90429 Nuernberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------    
Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B

Attachment: msg00240/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature