-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been _forwarded_! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: *WINPOINT*
From: *Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)*
To: *All*
Subject: *WinPoint Version 403*
Sent: *04.03.2022* *12:46:16*
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 402.1
Sent: 03.03.22 19:31:22
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: Rinaldo Visscher
Subject: Re: IPv6 support
Sent: 03.03.22 19:23:38
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
When can I test it?MvdV> That is good news. :)I checked. Indeed there is a single point where the software processes
the adress that is not working for IPv6. Basically pretty easy to fix,
ONCE I find or build the necessary header files to use WinSock2 under
Delphi 2007 ...
Works now.
End of forwarded message <@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< -+- WinPoint 402.1
End of forwarded message <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
End of forwarded message <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Fixes some missing list/combo box items (e.g., variables list in text group settings).
Also moves the filter setting next to the sorting for the compact list to make the ux more comprehensive in that respect.
Also includes some other small fixes
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 403
Sent: 04.03.2022 12:46:16
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Updated to 403. Should fix an issue where WP attempts to WRITE to a language file. Also, areas with inactive uplinks are now grey in the area tree.
http://winpoint.org/wpoint_403.zip
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 402.1
Sent: 03.03.22 19:31:22
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Hello,
in addition to IPv6 support, some People may also like the new "compact" message list layout that comes up when you set the message pane to be on the right (rather than bottom) and make the message list small enough (about less than one third of the screen) ...
Regards,
Tim
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: Rinaldo Visscher
Subject: Re: IPv6 support
Sent: 03.03.22 19:23:38
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Hello Rinaldo,
on 02.03.22 at 7:50:03 You wrote in Area WINPOINT to Tim Schattkowsky about "IPv6 support".
MvdV> That is good news. :)I checked. Indeed there is a single point where the software
processes the adress that is not working for IPv6. Basically pretty
easy to fix, ONCE I find or build the necessary header files to use
WinSock2 under Delphi 2007 ...
Works now.
When can I test it?
It is available as a binary only (including language files - just in
case) from
http://winpoint.org/wpoint_402_1.zip
Just drop the files into the installation directory. I did not create an installer because I have back problems since yesterday. Probably I have been sitting for too long ...
Regards,
Tim
-+- WinPoint 402.1
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
End of forwarded message
<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<-+- WinPoint 402.1
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
End of forwarded message
<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Regards,
Tim
-+- WinPoint 403.0
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
End of forwarded message
<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<
Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)
Hallo Tim,
on 07.03.22 at 15:18:05 you wrote in the Area WINPOINT to All one message with
Thema "WinPoint Version 404".
Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?
Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?
Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?
Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?
As long as the host also has an IPv4 address, WP will use the IPv4.
That is the common practice to aviod trouble with IPv6 infratstructure issues. WP will only use IPv6, if the host only presents an IPv6
address.
As long as the host also has an IPv4 address, WP will use the IPv4. That
is the common practice to aviod trouble with IPv6 infratstructure
issues. WP will only use IPv6, if the host only presents an IPv6
address.
Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in
between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6
connection state.
Switching this is basically easy. I will do that.
However, also implementing a fallback would take longer and just made
it to the end of the list.
I think user applications should by default not have a preferrence.
They should use the order as it is presented to them by the OS...
(Of course you could have options that change the preferrence)
I think user applications should by default not have a preferrence. They
should use the order as it is presented to them by the OS...
Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a
decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in
between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly
since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6
connection state.
While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few lines
of code),
I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.
Also, no offense ... but is this a programmers or users opinion?
Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host,
the debate becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host
should only present an IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose
here anyway.
On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it
differently: there is no actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with using IPv4 that may actually still
have compatibility. Once the connection is established its all the
same anyway.
To speed up the transition anyone capable of IPv6 should make IP6 connections for just this reason alone.
MvdV> So what is stopping you?While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few lines of
code),
MvdV> It is in line with the general principle of "do not reinvent theI would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.
Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host, the
debate becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host should
only present an IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose here anyway.
On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to
connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it differently:
there is no actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so
whats wrong with using IPv4 that may actually still have compatibility.
Once the connection is established its all the same anyway.
Well, as long as I have no indication that the result order of the OS returned has any semantics at all (rather than beeing random) relying
on itmay worse than making an enducated guess. If you know some place
that defines that the order is actually a suggestion on priorities
that would be fine.
While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few
lines of code),
Did it for testing.
I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.
Well, as long as I have no indication that the result order of the OS returned has any semantics at all (rather than beeing random) relying
on itmay worse than making an enducated guess. If you know some place
that defines that the order is actually a suggestion on priorities
that would be fine.
Nice workaround and indeed worse than the direct connection. However,
I suppose this uses a different hostname than the IPv6 address of the
same node and thus again is no case where the client can choose?
Ouch. Why?
For the same host name?
On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using
IPv4 to connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put
it differently: there is no actual advantage in using IPv6
(other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with using IPv4 that
may actually still have compatibility. Once the connection is
established its all the same anyway.
All true, but than again there will simply be no IPv4 address to
choose ;)
It took some google-ing, but I got your answer.
There is an extensive RFC written about this subject:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt
(See paragraph 10.3 if you are in a hurry ;-))
Windows implements this RFC:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/networking/ configure-ipv6-in-windows
MvdV> And?Did it for testing.
I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS. We have
to test if that works as expected.
Did it for testing.
It's in and seems to work for me.
It does. Thanks!
Hi Tim,
On 2022-03-11 13:07:04, you wrote to me:
I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS. We have
to test if that works as expected.
And if the first fails or times out, it should move on to the next (that's what binkd does)...
Did it for testing.
It's in and seems to work for me.
I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS.
We have to test if that works as expected.
And if the first fails or times out, it should move on to the
next (that's what binkd does)...
Yes, that is the idea. But this is a little more work and thus not something I do right now. Again, this currently makes preferring IPv4
over IPv6 probably the better choice, as it addresses exactly the
scenario where the fallback would be needed.
I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a
valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are available.
On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the
user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.
Will release it shortly. However, I changed a LOT of crucial code (90%
of anything related to packet output) and still want to test that a
little longer first. It scares me most that apperently NOTHING broke
...
I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a
valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only
benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are
available.
On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the
user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.
All true, but currently unimplemented in WP and from an implementation perspective all the same. I agree, it would be nice to have that in,
but currently I see little practical benefit for the user and thus
focus on other stuff. It will rest on the list until the more urgent
stuff is done.
If that is going to be the determining factor, I suspect it will be decades before it happens. There are hundreds of thousands of
security systems, thermostats, ATMs, POS systems, refrigerators, TVs, vending machines, etc. that currently populate the IPV4 space, and
will likely last for quite some time. A push to force all of those
users to upgrade their device for no benefit to them will meet a lot
of resistance.
You wrote to All about print-test of Your post, Tim Schattkowsky.
It's ok.
And how about Russian letters, Tim?
Sysop: | Xerxes |
---|---|
Location: | Azle, Texas |
Users: | 119 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 104:04:40 |
Calls: | 3,018 |
Calls today: | 0 |
Files: | 155 |
U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
Messages: | 293,599 |
Posted today: | 0 |