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" <[email protected]> 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
