<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: SCTP removed	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2015/01/16/sctp-removed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2015/01/16/sctp-removed/</link>
	<description>A running description of activity related to DragonFly BSD.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2015 06:49:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John		</title>
		<link>https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2015/01/16/sctp-removed/comment-page-1/#comment-327204</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2015 06:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dragonflydigest.com/?p=15445#comment-327204</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[actually it looks like a loss to me.
I understand that it was unmaintained, ancient, and blocking good IPv6.  That said, I don&#039;t thin we&#039;d throw away an up-to-date implementation of SCTP that didn&#039;t interfere with IPv6 (or rather turn down re-importing it if it were available to us)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually it looks like a loss to me.<br />
I understand that it was unmaintained, ancient, and blocking good IPv6.  That said, I don&#8217;t thin we&#8217;d throw away an up-to-date implementation of SCTP that didn&#8217;t interfere with IPv6 (or rather turn down re-importing it if it were available to us)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
