Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199506052048.QAA07216@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:39:23 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: address syntax
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 06 Jun 1995 06:26:39 +1000 from Robert Elz
             <kre@munnari.oz.au>

On Tue, 06 Jun 1995 06:26:39 +1000 Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> said:

>However, the IPng  group will write a  new RFC (when they  get around to
>going through all of  the RFCs - or at least all  of the standards RFCs,
>and  making changes  to  anything that  refers to  "IP  address" or  its
>syntax,  anywhere). When  that happens  that address  (modulo the  bogus
>characters) will  be legal, and  you'll have to parse  it the way  it is
>obviously intended.

The real question here is, do you  want a smooth migration or do you want
to gratuitously  break existing  software? Personally,  I would  be quite
annoyed to have to go through all my applications and add code to support
a new syntax for a deprecated thing that I just want to ignore completely
in the first place. I can  imagine that many software vendors would react
the  same way.  This translates  to "suggestion  for future  release" and
unhappy users.  And what is all  that for? To support  source routes with
explicit IP addresses, which  are a Bad Thing in the  first place and not
even guaranteed  to work. In  fact, the RFCs  advise people to  ignore if
found. This doesn't seem like a sound business case to me. I guess I just
don't see why we should allow IPv6 source routes in the first place.

  Eric