Re: Zone Name Change Prototype

[Brad Parker <[e-mail]>]

>> Ciao,

[ my understanding is that you would only use "ciao" with people you
  would the the "familiar you" with ;-) but then, the same people would
  tell you that one does not drink cappaccino after lunch ;-) ]

>> Our Neighboring Routers List implementation overview:
>> We allocate one byte per potential router on the net for each AppleTalk
>> port on the router.  This is 254 * number of nets in range.  Yes, this
>> gets big if the range is large.  When an RTMP packet is received, we
>> update the byte 

yes, I think we all understand the memory/speed tradeoff (we could use
a table for multiplies also, which would be fast, but it would take a
lot of memory).  This scheme is impractical if the entire system has a
small amount of memory, say 512k.

but hey, this is old news.

I'm interested in (and supportive of) the zone name changing proposal
- it sounds a lot like what we used to do in phase 1.  I'm curious,
however, why the routers need to stop emitting rtmp packets.  Is there
a technical reason besides causing all the end-nodes to timeout?

(i think the wording needs to be made a bit less ambiguous - it needs to
be clear that the routers stop advertising the network range out their
*other* ports)

I'd prefer to see the end-nodes not all loose connectivity and end up
in the default zone. (maybe I misread that - do they only end up in 
the default zone if they where in a zone which went away?)

but then, that would require an upgrade to the end nodes, wouldn't it.

[warning - possibly il-informed hot-air filled opinion follows]

I find it humorous that we protocol/router people are so adverse to
making changes to the end nodes while the system software people at
apple have made changes with wild abandon. (I can count 3 recent revs
in my head.  I would guess there have been over 5 in the last 2
years).  am I wrong? ]

-brad