On 2014-04-01, at 01:31, Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote:
<---cut---> > The NAT64 scheme I > think was brought up in case we could work in that environment with > minimal changes to OpenAFS, but as far as I can tell the answer to that > is just "no". > > It sounded like you were satisfied with the answers I gave, George, but > I'm mentioning this here in case anyone else wanted to hear an actual > answer to the original question. And of course maybe this is clearer in > text, and after I've had more sleep and food, and we're not scribbling > on a little piece of paper and trying to speak loudly enough that we can > actually hear each other :) Hi Andrew Thank you for an interesting talk about the subject and thank you all for a great conference! Yes, I was satisfied with the answer. As you also mentioned, I asked the question in case it would be a minimal change to the design. It is clearly not, so I see no point in creating support for this (at least for now where NAT64 is not very widespread and perhaps never will be - who knows :). -- Regards Georg Sluyterman_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
