You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2019/10/15 09:14:09 UTC
AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network
Hi,
in this twitter thread [1] someone asks :
"Anyone tested AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network?"
I think ipv4 or ipv6 should not be a problem like any other REST transfer.
We just serialize or deserialize and communications goes over
XMLHttpRequest right?
so nothing should be a problem here, but want to ask here before to confirm
what I say
Anyway seems people could have problems depending on browser providers
having some issue or not prepared for ipv6 [2], although if is the case, I
think is up to them fix
Andy XMLHttpRequest issue.
Thanks
[1] https://twitter.com/seddik82/status/1183763122861105152?s=20
[2]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40611863/ipv6-issues-with-ajax-requests
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
ok Alex, I'll do for you
thanks
El mar., 15 oct. 2019 a las 18:17, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Please go ahead and respond for me. I haven't really figured out Twitter
> yet.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/15/19, 9:05 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
> do you want to respond yourself in the twitter thread? if not I can
> respond
> in your line
> thanks
>
> El mar., 15 oct. 2019 a las 16:30, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> > Someone needs to try it. I would think the transport would work.
> The
> > next thing I wondered about was specification of destination and
> channels
> > in IPV6. If the IP is resolved in DNS then it should be abstracted,
> but
> > not sure if we have any code expecting a certain pattern of "." in
> the URL
> > handling in Channel and ChannelSet and related classes.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/15/19, 2:21 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in this twitter thread [1] someone asks :
> >
> > "Anyone tested AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network?"
> >
> > I think ipv4 or ipv6 should not be a problem like any other REST
> > transfer.
> > We just serialize or deserialize and communications goes over
> > XMLHttpRequest right?
> > so nothing should be a problem here, but want to ask here before
> to
> > confirm
> > what I say
> >
> > Anyway seems people could have problems depending on browser
> providers
> > having some issue or not prepared for ipv6 [2], although if is
> the
> > case, I
> > think is up to them fix
> > Andy XMLHttpRequest issue.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fseddik82%2Fstatus%2F1183763122861105152%3Fs%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=BTW8e9qcbIg%2F0YyV6Am%2Fv0or1X4D%2BTuOxKnQxVgjuSU%3D&reserved=0
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F40611863%2Fipv6-issues-with-ajax-requests&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=UhRu2FlFUY2iiH2nP58DcQkuZHtq6WQHigV89EcjAV8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=%2BIASXzpMAvkhuL7FvFeQIlwxKR4ziZfPoILgcW%2B%2FDIQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=%2BIASXzpMAvkhuL7FvFeQIlwxKR4ziZfPoILgcW%2B%2FDIQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Please go ahead and respond for me. I haven't really figured out Twitter yet.
-Alex
On 10/15/19, 9:05 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
do you want to respond yourself in the twitter thread? if not I can respond
in your line
thanks
El mar., 15 oct. 2019 a las 16:30, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Someone needs to try it. I would think the transport would work. The
> next thing I wondered about was specification of destination and channels
> in IPV6. If the IP is resolved in DNS then it should be abstracted, but
> not sure if we have any code expecting a certain pattern of "." in the URL
> handling in Channel and ChannelSet and related classes.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/15/19, 2:21 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in this twitter thread [1] someone asks :
>
> "Anyone tested AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network?"
>
> I think ipv4 or ipv6 should not be a problem like any other REST
> transfer.
> We just serialize or deserialize and communications goes over
> XMLHttpRequest right?
> so nothing should be a problem here, but want to ask here before to
> confirm
> what I say
>
> Anyway seems people could have problems depending on browser providers
> having some issue or not prepared for ipv6 [2], although if is the
> case, I
> think is up to them fix
> Andy XMLHttpRequest issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fseddik82%2Fstatus%2F1183763122861105152%3Fs%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=BTW8e9qcbIg%2F0YyV6Am%2Fv0or1X4D%2BTuOxKnQxVgjuSU%3D&reserved=0
> [2]
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F40611863%2Fipv6-issues-with-ajax-requests&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=UhRu2FlFUY2iiH2nP58DcQkuZHtq6WQHigV89EcjAV8%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=%2BIASXzpMAvkhuL7FvFeQIlwxKR4ziZfPoILgcW%2B%2FDIQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cde3cb67214b848f15c3f08d751899092%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067523589944045&sdata=%2BIASXzpMAvkhuL7FvFeQIlwxKR4ziZfPoILgcW%2B%2FDIQ%3D&reserved=0
Re: AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
do you want to respond yourself in the twitter thread? if not I can respond
in your line
thanks
El mar., 15 oct. 2019 a las 16:30, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Someone needs to try it. I would think the transport would work. The
> next thing I wondered about was specification of destination and channels
> in IPV6. If the IP is resolved in DNS then it should be abstracted, but
> not sure if we have any code expecting a certain pattern of "." in the URL
> handling in Channel and ChannelSet and related classes.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/15/19, 2:21 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in this twitter thread [1] someone asks :
>
> "Anyone tested AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network?"
>
> I think ipv4 or ipv6 should not be a problem like any other REST
> transfer.
> We just serialize or deserialize and communications goes over
> XMLHttpRequest right?
> so nothing should be a problem here, but want to ask here before to
> confirm
> what I say
>
> Anyway seems people could have problems depending on browser providers
> having some issue or not prepared for ipv6 [2], although if is the
> case, I
> think is up to them fix
> Andy XMLHttpRequest issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fseddik82%2Fstatus%2F1183763122861105152%3Fs%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=D2sqzGnz%2BkAgKJNkEYiM9mfgZoiOUwbkkh8AiSu9rwA%3D&reserved=0
> [2]
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F40611863%2Fipv6-issues-with-ajax-requests&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=1iAEnaWL0LOSAZG3L%2F5dfgNMG2XsastEKPhkMJy8xpA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=xzFDHWbOdmIEaD0ea7hKediqghvaXsE%2FoWYNCA4bH0E%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Someone needs to try it. I would think the transport would work. The next thing I wondered about was specification of destination and channels in IPV6. If the IP is resolved in DNS then it should be abstracted, but not sure if we have any code expecting a certain pattern of "." in the URL handling in Channel and ChannelSet and related classes.
-Alex
On 10/15/19, 2:21 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
in this twitter thread [1] someone asks :
"Anyone tested AMF and RemoteObjects under the ipv6 network?"
I think ipv4 or ipv6 should not be a problem like any other REST transfer.
We just serialize or deserialize and communications goes over
XMLHttpRequest right?
so nothing should be a problem here, but want to ask here before to confirm
what I say
Anyway seems people could have problems depending on browser providers
having some issue or not prepared for ipv6 [2], although if is the case, I
think is up to them fix
Andy XMLHttpRequest issue.
Thanks
[1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fseddik82%2Fstatus%2F1183763122861105152%3Fs%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=D2sqzGnz%2BkAgKJNkEYiM9mfgZoiOUwbkkh8AiSu9rwA%3D&reserved=0
[2]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F40611863%2Fipv6-issues-with-ajax-requests&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=1iAEnaWL0LOSAZG3L%2F5dfgNMG2XsastEKPhkMJy8xpA%3D&reserved=0
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caf4b8359fb4f45b3fed708d751510155%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637067280664222854&sdata=xzFDHWbOdmIEaD0ea7hKediqghvaXsE%2FoWYNCA4bH0E%3D&reserved=0