Subj : linked
To   : Frank Vest
From : Gordon Lewicky
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 09:21 am

 Quoting Frank Vest to Gordon Lewicky 
 Subj. linked, dated 15-Dec-2002 00:33 

Hi Frank,

 FV> With one flag to denote IP capabilities and the IP/domain to that
 FV> would work for me. It's better than a flag for each IP protocol.

I dunno, but reveiwing all the "I" flags, they all seem
reasonable. Each is a distinct connectivity method, no different
then all the modem flags.

I can definately see any one system having any 1 or 2 of these
methods, and would assume that somebody might want to accomodate
all of them, and wish that fact to be known.

Flying them all only leads currently to problems with line length
restrictions, but that is easily fixed and is being worked on as
we speak.

The real problem is what do we do with the inet connect addy.
Where do we place it, should it be in a field of it's own, and
maintaining a cross-over for legacy by allowing the kludges into
system name or phone num fields.

And along with that, let's get a fixed definition of PVT. And I
see nothing wrong with defining it to mean a non directly
contactable system which must be routed to, and if direct contact
is needed then arrangements must be made with that node for the
means. And that is all it should stand for, IMO! :)

Cheers...
Gordon Lewicky (Pdk)

Sysop - Milky Way 1:153/307 NC 153
AdventureNet 33:500/150
email glewicky@telus.net

--- EzyBlueWave/2 V2.00 00F90260
 * Origin: Milky Way, Langley, BC [604] 532-4367 (1:153/307)

.