Subj : linked
To   : Gordon Lewicky
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 07:48 pm

On (15 Dec 02) Gordon Lewicky wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello Gordon,

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

One picky technical difference. :) Binkp and the other IP flags are
protocol flags, not connectivity flags in the respect that the Fidonet
Nodelist expects.

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

Agreed... to a point. Not all should be needed.

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

That seems to be the problem... and the base for some of the ideas
here... both pro and con.

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

That's as good an opinion as any other. Thanks for sharing it with us.
:)

Regards,

Frank

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01
 * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)

.