From c094695add94493ab46d535b6fca1801efa127c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: erdgeist <>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:06:13 +0000
Subject: account downloaded before early returns

---
 README_v6 | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

(limited to 'README_v6')

diff --git a/README_v6 b/README_v6
index 72d25a3..6a5a82a 100644
--- a/README_v6
+++ b/README_v6
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 Q: Why is there no v6-support in opentracker?
 
-A: Although I tried very hard, implementing v6 right now would be a terrible waste of bandwidth, there is no compact format for v6 addresses, so instead of 
-answering "d5:peers6:AAAAPPe" I'd have to send "d5:peersld2:ip39:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA4:port2:PPPPeee" for a single peer. Even if there was a 
+A: Although I tried very hard, implementing v6 right now would be a terrible waste of bandwidth, there is no compact format for v6 addresses, so instead of
+answering "d5:peers6:AAAAPPe" I'd have to send "d5:peersld2:ip39:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA4:port2:PPPPeee" for a single peer. Even if there was a
 compact mode, v6 addresses still would eat up thrice the memory, v4 addresses take. This, however, wouldn't be a show stopper.
 
-Other problems concern efficient peer selection for obviously v6-capable peers and how to select peers for non-v6 clients. v6 addresses eat up more memory on the 
+Other problems concern efficient peer selection for obviously v6-capable peers and how to select peers for non-v6 clients. v6 addresses eat up more memory on the
 host, too ;)
-- 
cgit v1.2.3