On 6/15/10 11:04 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> And since I'm not in the best of moods I'll also answer in kind by
> saying us application engineers might also be waiting for someone
> with half a clue as to how to design a proper standard API to come
> along and do that.
Ned,
A
On 6/15/10 11:04 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And since I'm not in the best of moods I'll also answer in kind by
saying us application engineers might also be waiting for someone
with half a clue as to how to design a proper standard API to come
along and do that.
Ned,
Agreed, bet
Anyone can design a system for use by highly motivated geniuses.
It takes a lot more skill to build something that can be used by
people whose primary motivation is not to make 'your stuff' work.
The issue Ned raises is very typical of what most engineers spend 80%
of their time on - fixing stupi
The mistake there being to insist on implementation of the IPv6
specification rather than what is necessary to enable the transition
to IPv6.
You can't build a building without scaffolding. In the middle ages the
design of the scaffold was often as great an engineering feat as the
building (c.f.
getaddrinfo() works for clients.
It does not work for servers, in particular it does not work for
peer-to-peer services that may be hidden behind layers of NAT44, NAT46
and NAT64. Port forwarding requests have to be a part of the model.
That in turn means that there has to be a security model.
A
On 6/15/2010 7:30 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Yes, all we need is application engineers with a network clue. They seem to be
hard to come by.
Every layer is clue-challenged, when it comes to staffing.
Possibly at other times, too.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > But in a Betamax/VHS type contest, attempting to differentiate the new
> > through obfuscation merely raises barriers to transition. In that
> > circumstance you want to minimize the differences between the two
> > technologies so that
Fred Baker wrote:
I have a solution. Let's go through those OS's and rename gethostbyname to GetHostByName.
Put in huge comments everywhere that the character string is found (man pages, which btw
already have this, and in the code itself) "if you use this, you're an idiot".
Make folks use the
On Jun 15, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> But in a Betamax/VHS type contest, attempting to differentiate the new
> through obfuscation merely raises barriers to transition. In that
> circumstance you want to minimize the differences between the two
> technologies so that they can
Yes, I am aware that some applications are IPv6 only. But I don't
think that they have enough momentum to carry the IPv4 world forward
into IPv6. The applications that are following that route are
self-selecting for requiring little or no IPv4 connectivity.
There are two models of technology adopt
10 matches
Mail list logo
