Am I going to have any problems with trademark nonsense if I call this 'AFS6', and use the same ports, but only on IPv6 addresses? I don't mean to produce a throw-away implementation, but I also do not want to confuse anyone that this is anything other than alpha-use-at-your-own-risk software. (but hey, gmail's been 'beta' for years) .... What should I call an ipv6 prototype?
I would like to have a working code that I can run regression tests against before proposing a standard that interoperates with AFS3 and ipv4. On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:19:40AM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > While you may fork the code base, you may not fork the AFS3 wire > protocols. If you decide to implement your own extensions to AFS3 you > must follow the rules of the AFS3 standardization and RPC registration > processes. If you choose not to follow those rules, then you must > implement your own wire protocol that will not interfere with AFS3 > clients and servers. > > While the approach you describe below might be sufficient for your > personal needs, it is unlikely that it would be acceptable to OpenAFS. > > Jeffrey Altman > > > On 9/10/2012 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > 1) replace kernel filesystem type of 'afs' with 'tfs'' > > 2) expand all 32 bit IP address data structures to 128 bits > > 3) change sockaddr() etc calls to INET6 > > 4) develop ipv4 afs to ipv6 tfs proxy server > > 5) kernel module housekeeping to allow openafs.ko and tfs.ko to > > be loaded at the same time to allow clients to mount /afs using > > legacy OpenAFS, and /tfs moving forward. > > > > Is there anything else I'm missing (besides the flamewar that > > will probably follow regarding the name change?) > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenAFS-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel > > > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
