Subj : Easier solution?
To : Scott Little
From : Charles Cruden
Date : Wed Jan 01 2003 02:03 pm
> 2) The IP address may be dynamic
A dynamic IP address has to be overcome with an FQDN. Just put the FQDN in
the phone number field.
> 3) Text other than -Unpublished- is likely to cause issues with nodelist
> processors
I tried a few entries with nlmake here, and it didn't seem to complain, nor did
FDNC. (Mind you, FD/FDNC has some accounting for IP nodes, so that probably
helped.) For nodelist compilers in general, I'd imagine the worst it would do
would be to reject that node, which given it's an IP node to begin with would
exactly be a bad thing. For segment compilers it becomes more of a problem.
OTOH, there are fewer segment compilers to worry about....
> 4) IP addresses require a prefix, currently 000 which could bring a visit
> from the cops for Aus people who have their systems misconfigured
It would certainly be helpful to have something identifying them as IP
addresses to avoid having POTS nodes dialing them inadvertently. But with
separate listings for POTS vs IP, that risk is reduced somewhat. I suggested
the IP# heading, but if something can be found that all agree on, it can be
pretty much anything.
> Multiple listings would require some method for software to recognise them
> as the one physical system, otherwise routing has to be manual.
Well, the multiple listings would all be going to the same system, so it
wouldn't really matter which address you sent to, since it would end up at
the same spot. Then you just choose which address you want to use based on
the contact method you want to use.
---
* Origin: Xanadu: an odd little spot in Edmonton, Alberta (1:342/806)
