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

Re: Addressless tickets in 0.8.x

On May 21, 2007, at 9:47 PM, Harald Barth wrote:

>>> 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 absolutely agree with you on that.  That's what renewable tickets  
are for (if a bare service ticket isn't sufficient).

>> I wish Sun, MIT and Heimdal used the same name for this
>> option too.
> So who implements synonyms/aliases first?
> Harald.