Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

[John Stracke <[e-mail]>]

Keith Moore wrote:

>Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code, that
>code largely defines expectations for what will and will not work in practice
>- often moreso than the standards themselves.
>  
>
Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's commendable 
that they implemented IPv6 at all; it's not as if there's a lot of 
market demand for it yet.  From that viewpoint, it's not surprising that 
they gave IPv6 address literals a low priority.

(Personally, I would've implemented address literals *first*, so that, 
if I ran into a bug, I could isolate whether it was in DNS lookup or 
not.  Would've saved time in the long run, since debugging takes longer 
than coding.)

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      |[e-mail]                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/