Implement IPv6 support #8
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hello. I'm interested in IPv6 support. What prevents this PR from being merged? |
This pull request is still a work in progress. |
|
I'm using it on my service currently and it works fine. I'm not sure when I will get around to implement the missing task (see checkboxes in PR description). @kriomant If you are willing to use the work-in-progress version, feel free to do so, it works for me. |
dndx
added a commit
to dndx/phantun
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2022
dndx
added a commit
to dndx/phantun
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2022
|
Is this PR still working? |
|
Is this PR still working? After 1 year, still has issues? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is my approach to implementing IPv6 support.
It is fairly minimal at the moment and I will try to keep the following checklist up to date on what is already implemented:
TunBuilderTuninstances.This is requires changing the currently used syscall from ioctl to getifaddrs because ioctl will only ever return IPv4 addresses.
Known inconveniences:
EADDRNOTAVAIL: Cannot assign requested addressgets thrown upon building the TUN device.We should think about whether we want to just keep it that way or return our own error that then explicitly tells the user what they did wrong.
As always, feel free to give feedback :)
closes #6