Text 4766, 60 rader
Skriven 2011-10-19 20:37:16 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Jame Clay (1:120/546)
Ärende: IPv6
============
Hello Jame,

On Tuesday October 18 2011 18:12, you wrote to me:

 JC>     A point running on a laptop, for instance.  More and more laptops
 JC> (or netbooks, or tablets for that matter) are being used by people as
 JC> either their sole or primary PC.   It's true that IPv6 capability
 JC> isn't wide spread as yet but it's heading that way which means that
 JC> there are going to be more people who have it either as their sole
 JC> connectivity or as an alternative connectivity.  Which means more
 JC> people would be able to participate with such point programs being
 JC> available.

I too have a laptop running a point programme. I use it when on holiday. The
laoptop as such is IPv6 capable but the binkp client is not. As of now I see no
plus for IPv6 for that point system. A point system connects to FidoNet through
his boss node and as long as that boss node is IPv4 capable, the point has no
use for IPv6. IPv6 for a point only makes sense if is boss node is IPv6 only.

 >>> There might be cases where the A & AAAA records don't have the same
 >>> domain name,

 >> I have some difficulty imagining why someone would do that other
 >> than for testing. But... multiple INA flags will do the trick.

 JC>     Would that even be valid?

Sure, why not?

 JC>    I was thinking something more like multiple IBN flags, though that
 JC> might start getting into issues with line length...

Mutiple INA flags might have line length issues too. I wish the ZC's would take
the transition to MakeNlNg more serious.

 >>> and/or there are specific domain names just for IPv6;
 >> In that case, one can use a second node number.

 JC>    True, even if for what may be the same system...

OTOH, I am not too anthusiastic about having different nodenumbers for the same
system with multiple connection methods. My preference would be to have all the
connection methods on one ndelist line with one node number. Reason: when
answering to an echomail message wit a direct netmail, the sender may not
support the connectiom method associated with the node number the writer uses
for echomail. Software is not intelligent enough to select an aternative node
number compatible with the sender's connection methods.

 >> IPv6 is new, so it is hard to foresee what exotic setups emerge that
 >> require special things. Might as well play it by ear.

 JC>    Indeed...<g>

So let us wait and see what emerges...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)