Opened 12 years ago

Closed 12 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#2699 closed Enhancement (invalid)

IPv6 doesn't use udp

Reported by: udo Owned by:
Priority: Normal Milestone: None Set
Component: Transmission Version: 1.76
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

I noticed that transmission 1.76 doesn't listen yet on 6881/udp.

Change History (13)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by udo

http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/12/28/the-ipv6-situation/

The UDP-protocol has not left any space for IPv6-addresses in its current form. So we need to define a new action together with its input and output block formats.

Proposed extension to the UDP Tracker format to work over IPv6, we claim a value for the action identifier of “4″.:

Request: Offset Size Name Value 0 64-bit integer connection_id 8 32-bit integer action 4 12 32-bit integer transaction_id 16 20-byte string info_hash 36 20-byte string peer_id 56 64-bit integer downloaded 64 64-bit integer left 72 64-bit integer uploaded 80 32-bit integer event 84 16-byte string IP address 100 32-bit integer key 104 32-bit integer num_want -1 108 16-bit integer port

The corresponding reply looks as follows:

Response: Offset Size Name Value 0 32-bit integer action 4 4 32-bit integer transaction_id 8 32-bit integer interval 12 32-bit integer leechers 16 32-bit integer seeders 20+n*18 16-byte string IPv6 address 36+n*18 16-bit integer TCP port

comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by udo

  • Cc udovdh@… added

comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by jch

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed

Transmission doesn't implement the UDP tracker protocol at all, whether on IPv4 or on IPv6. See #117. --Juliusz

comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by udo

  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Then why does my transmission listen on 6881/udp on ipv4? DHT etc don't count? Invalid is a too quick dismissal with factial incorrect basis? Or perhaps inorrect interpretation?

There are probably multiple uses for udp. Let's make the udp functionality that exists for IPv4 available on IPv6 first.

comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by jch

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Then why does my transmission listen on 6881/udp on ipv4?

DHT. DHT over IPv6 is implemented in Transmission 1.80.

Or perhaps inorrect interpretation?

Please read your initial report -- you explicitly spoke about the UDP tracker support.

Let's make the udp functionality that exists for IPv4 available on IPv6 first.

Yes, let's.

--Julius

comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by udo

I did not use the word tracker at all. I assume you know what udp is used for for IPv4. I wanted udp use for IPv6. Thanks for informing us that 1.80 will reach that goal (soon?).

comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by jch

I did not use the word tracker at all.

Your whole initial ticket was describing the IPv6 extensions to the UDP tracker protocol (which we are well aware of).

The proper place to discuss IPv6 support in Transmission is

http://forum.transmissionbt.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9138

comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by udo

You warp my statements. I was NOT describing what you say I described. I assume you know what udp is used for for IPv4 IN THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION of transmission. (e.g. DHT) By saying 'IPv6 doesn't use udp' (the TITLE of the trac thing) it is obvious that IPv6 should use udp as well. And in fact at least as IPv4 does. (e.g. DHT)

comment:9 Changed 12 years ago by User294

As for me, I can see transmission 1.80 beta listens on: IPv4 TCP port - torrent client connections, IPv4 IPv4 UDP port - DHT, IPv4 IPv6 TCP port - torrent client connections, IPv6 IPv6 UDP port - DHT, IPv6

Those ports are used to accept incoming connections and datagrams ("listening ports"). Communication to tracker is an outcoming connection or datagram and generally does not needs it's own permanent listening port at all (could use OS-assigned high ports for local end of connection, etc).

People on link you have mentioned talk about UDP tracker protocol. UDP tracker protocol is not implemented by Transmission at all (UDP tracker protocol is quite optional). So there is no problem that it does not works with IPv6 (it does not works with IPv4 either). UDP ports you can see are DHT ports. So at very least bug title is wrong.

comment:10 Changed 12 years ago by udo

you have mentioned talk about UDP tracker protocol

I did not. You don't read but interpret. I quoted the udp thing to be helpful. Next time ask before drawing your conclusion.

comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by User294

Hey, udo, please switch on your brain. Now. You have referenced to page discussing tracker protocol, both TCP and UDP. It mentions there are some issues with IPv6 in tracker protocol and they're most problematic in UDP flavour of protocol. But Transmission did not implements UDP flavour of tracker protocol at all - neither IPv4 nor IPv6. Hence your statements do not apply at all. So either you want to have UDP tracker protocol in general first (then your bug is dupe and have to be closed) or you have certain troubles with logic. Granted that UDP tracker protocol not supported, the only valid part is there can be some issues with (supported) TCP tracker protocol. But you explicitly mentioned UDP in your "bug". Hence not a case. Then, you referred to UDP ports used by DHT. As of 1.80, DHT supports both IPv4 and IPv6 so there is UDP socket. Yet it haves nothing to do with UDP tracker protocol discussed on pages you referred to. And just to let you know, outcoming connections and datagrams do not need persistent listening socket bound on specific port (from your words it looks like you're not well aware of it). Note: I'm not a dev, just curious on what you're actually trying to report. For me it appears you lack proper P2P protocols and networking knowledge to explain what you want to report.

comment:12 Changed 12 years ago by udo

Please do no insult me. The page is a spec which I, as a user, do not need to go into but which covers UDP, the first torrent and UDP reference that i could find. Then the title which is as open as it can be. Then there's me not writing (by myself!) any word of 'tracker'. Then we later clarify that we want to get the IPv4 functionality on teh IPv6 side. Then YOU, who need to be progarmming, waste time to point out my communication skillz. And your lack thereof: imagine to be not a developer but a user or somewhere in between. Now, if yiou are not 100% sure of what I would mean, by READING, then you should ask. Do *I* know what goes on over UDP currently? No. By some searchign I see DHT etc. YOU should do the intelligent work, not keep me doing stuff I need not do. YOU expect peer to peer protocol knowledge? Please do not start me there. I expect human interfacing professionalism.

comment:13 Changed 12 years ago by udo

  • Cc udovdh@… removed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.