[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Addressless tickets in 0.8.x

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