At least VM is better off than VSE. We don't even have a low-level IPv6
access routine to the hardware yet. So, neither stack product can even
start coding IPv6 support. :-(
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: David Boyes
Sent: 03/29/2006 10:15 PM
Tony Thigpen said:
Maybe
The IPP printer proposal is interesting. I would prefer implementing CUPS. Would
CUPS require a Linux guest to be a part of RSCS?
The second proposal IPV6 is becoming necessary. At one time I thought I heard
that IBM was working on it. Nothing recently.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I’ve been
The IPP printer proposal is interesting. I would prefer implementing
CUPS. Would
CUPS require a Linux guest to be a part of RSCS?
CUPS *is* an IPP implementation (the reference implementation, in fact).
I've separated the two (IPP support from a Linux guest running CUPS) because
IBM has legal
Maybe the IPv6 thing is really a non-issue? Our mainframes are behind
routers that can do the IPv6 conversion. So what if our machine only has
a short address, with the router doing the conversion, the other end
thinks we are IPv6 without out us really being IPv6.
Or, do I misunderstand the
Title: Re: Draft requirements for 2006 WAVV up for comments
Tony Thigpen said:
Maybe the IPv6 thing is really a non-issue? Our mainframes
are behind routers that can do the IPv6 conversion.
So what if our machine only has a short address,
with the router doing the conversion, the other
