= Сообщение: 832 из 7442 ============================================== IPV6 = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 25 Jul 14 01:30:24 Кому : Benny Pedersen 25 Jul 14 01:30:24 Тема : Testing with BinkD... FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+53d19a11 На : area://IPV6?msgid=1:261/38.20+53d10c3a = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== ============================================================================== Hello Benny,
On Thursday July 24 2014 13:34, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> No, it does not. We have discussed this before. Using a MvdV>> hostname is the prefered method when possible,
BP> +1
So we agree that using a host name is the preferred method. Also note that "preferred method" implies it is not the only method. Sometimes a host name may not be available. In that case there is a "plan B": Using literal IP addresses.
MvdV>> but using two INA flags, one with the IPv6 and one with the IPv4 MvdV>> address is complient with FTS-5000 and FTSS-5001.
BP> this is workarounds,
Call it what you want, the fact is that it is FTSC complient.
BP> its the same as have 2 hostnames that are single stacked,
No, it is not. Hostnames can resolve to more than one IP address, an IP address can not.
BP> will work aswell yes, but badly dns/nodelist waste
I disagree. Using host names is to make things easier for humans. Humans are better in remembering names than numbers. Especially big numbers. But machines do not have that limitation. Machines do not need names, they can remember the numbers just as well. From the machine's POV using host names is ineficient. Bypassing the dns system and dealing directly with IP numbers is much more efficient from the machine's POV. The information in the nodelist is primarily meant for machines. So...
