IPv6 compatibility

[marmos91]

Would be nice to have IPv6 compatibility in order to use remote address formatted in that way as your own error tell us:

Only IPv4 is supported currently. Open an issue for IPv6 support

Thank you for your work.

[CMCDragonkai]

What would it take to support ipv6? Is this an issue in the underlying utp library or just due to this utp-native?

Also I noticed that using IPV6 addresses causes the listen to hang.

[kasperisager]

For the record, https://github.com/hyperswarm/libudx has full support for IPv6.

[CMCDragonkai]

@kasperisager how ready is libudx and why not make use of QUIC?

[kasperisager]

It's been pretty stable for a while and is actively used in Hyperswarm. Compared to both TCP and QUIC, UDX is extremely simple, adding only a thin layer on top of UDP to provide reliable and ordered streams.

[mafintosh]

It's all about P2P first. We need a transport that support holepunching at the core of it. That means traditional handshakes are out the window. It also means you need more flexibility about crypto, so you can run handshakes outside the ordered streams. UDX was born to solve this. Like @kasperisager said, it's simple, does what it needs to do (and does it fast!) and is not a quic replacement or anything like that - it's a p2p-first ordered stream library written in c.

[CMCDragonkai]

Interesting we were evaluating QUIC as a replacement. But do you have a roadmap for libudx?