[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Addressless tickets in 0.8.x
> > 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?
Not for folks doing NAT, but for the rest of us, why not?
I don't like the trend towards addressless tickets with a long
lifetime. Often such a tgt is left lying around when a service ticket
would have been enough.
> I wish Sun, MIT and Heimdal used the same name for this
> option too.
So who implements synonyms/aliases first?