Pekka;
> > I don't know whether he fixed BIND correctly or not, but as Paul,
> > seemingly, did not understand the problem serious, I will not be
> > surprised if BIND is still broken.
> >
> > However, it does not affect the fact that your implementation is
> > broken.
> >
> > Your implementation is broken, not because it behaves differently
> > from BIND but because it can not handle a configuration perfectly
> > leagal with regard to RFC103[45].
>
> Could you please show _exactly_ what part(s) you're referring to?
If I say something is leagal with regard to RFC103[45], I am referring
to the entire document of RFC103[45].
> It might help us mortals understand what's the crux here.
As a crux, I already showed a very simple example with aol.com.
and aol.net.
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
