Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id BAA00263; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:39:04 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:37:03 -0500
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id BAA00159; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:36:54 -0500
Received: from oslo9.or.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <17555-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:35:57 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05933;
          Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:02:16 +0100
Message-Id: <199601222302.AAA05933@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 1996 18:11:18 EST." <skzhCKC00WBwIFZe1r@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5929.822351736.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:02:16 +0100
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

If we use hexstring.ip6.int, we must muck around with the part of the
code that handles domain names instead of the part that handles
domain literals.
In both cases, the addresses aren't replyable by old mailers; this
is unavoidable, I think.

What do people think is cleanest?

      Harald