On 10 Sep 2012, at 06:19, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > While you may fork the code base, you may not fork the AFS3 wire > protocols.
This is just not true. There are no internet standards police. In the same way as anyone can run a service that looks like HTTP, but isn't quite on port 80, there's absolutely nothing stopping Troy (or anyone else) running a mutant filserver on port 7000. If you believe that the AFS trademark remains enforcable, you might get into trouble if you called that service AFS - but that's not what Troy is proposing > On 9/10/2012 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: >> >> Is there anything else I'm missing (besides the flamewar that >> will probably follow regarding the name change?) The big things that you are missing are the ubik election protocol, and the vl database. The database uses fixed size records that can't be easily changed (they're tied to the ubik page size, amongst other things). You would need to figure out a way to store IPv6 addresses within this database. However, I think all of this is somewhat premature. As I have said on many occasions before, there is low hanging fruit here. Making RX IPv6 capable is a relative straightforward operation. It requires no protocol changes, and can be done without affecting the existing API. If you, or anyone else, is serious about implementing IPv6 support, this would be a great place to start work, and to convince the community that you are prepared to back your words with action. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
