Re: Addressless tickets in 0.8.x

["Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>]

On May 21, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Harald Barth wrote:

>
>>> Has the default for no-addresses changed from false to true or is  
>>> this
>>> a bug?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Ehm, is this really necessary? Is this a concession towards all users
> that are behind NAT? But in this case, would it not be good enough to
> have something in between (say called "auto") which uses the
> no-address strategy only when the client is a RFC1597 adrdess and the
> other part is not? (No, I don't feel the urge to make "auto" work for
> folks that use NAT between different RFC1597 nets).

Does anyone really think it's realistic to enforce addresses?  AFS  
never has (and can't AFAIK, though that might change).

Most home users I know have a $20(US) box connected to their DSL/ 
Cable-modem line that does NAT.  Putting addresses in the tickets  
would effectively disable most home users.  I wish MIT defaulted to  
false.  I wish Sun, MIT and Heimdal used the same name for this  
option too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu