[OpenAFS-devel] Re: Moving Forwards

[Troy Benjegerdes]

I understand rx with v6 is the first step. Let's imagine I have it.

What's next so I can get an isolated linux client, and isolated linux
server talking AFS over IPv6?

Oh wait, I can't call it AFS, because afs3-std can't agree on what
the data structures should be and how Ubik is going to work.

That's a huge roadblock. However I think I've got a solution now with
a fork-and-rename to TFS.

FYI, this is the message that stopped me from doing anything until now:

http://www.mail-archive.com/openafs-devel@openafs.org/msg12653.html

I'd love to work with YFS on RxTCP and IPv6, either providing support
in-kind for public open source work, or on a contract basis for proprietary
code. Unfortunately market realities seem to have made it difficult for
YFS (or anyone else) to go off and do this.


On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41:15AM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 23:17:08 -0500
> Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
> 
> > If the gatekeepers wish to remain relevant, than I would please
> > request they come up with a workable IPv6 wire protocol that can be
> > incrementally developed and deployed to get working isolated cells
> > running v6 within 6 months.
> 
> I haven't been following your recent discussions wrt ipv6 very closely,
> but I would like to just point out that the _first step_ of ipv6
> integration is just internal support in the rx library/libraries, as has
> been mentioned in previous 'plans'/'roadmaps' for ipv6 support. Doing
> that step has, as far as I know, relatively zero opposition, and zero
> roadblocks; no standards or wire protocol changes or anything.
> 
> And still, it has not been done. I don't see anything stopping you, or
> anyone, from doing that.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel