Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!usage!ccadfa!cjsv@cs.adfa.oz.au
From: cjsv@cs.adfa.oz.au (Christopher J S Vance)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: %-Hack .vs. Route Address
Message-ID: <836@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>
Date: 9 Jan 90 00:34:56 GMT
References: <35783@cornell.UUCP>
Sender: news@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au
Organization: Computer Science, Univ. of NSW, ADFA Canberra, Australia
Lines: 18

In article <35783@cornell.UUCP> parmelee@cs.cornell.edu (Larry Parmelee) writes:
> Excuse me for jumping in in the middle of things...

Me too?

> Until something/someone officially defines the "%-hack", I will
> strongly resist using it, prefering route-addresses as the only
> un-ambiguous alternative.  Unfortunately, the Host Requirements RFC
> will undoubtedly eventually cause trouble with this approach.  Hopefully
> someone will come up with a unified definition of "%", "!", and "@"
> before things get too bad.

But it seems to me that you're only allowed to use route-addresses when all
the hosts are registered with the NIC.  Since they won't want to register
every PC in the world, or even every mainframe on lots of networks which are
not on the Internet, it seems you've got to break some rules to make things
work.  Personally, I think source-routes are nasty since they aren't pure
left-to-right or right-to-left.  But then I've never had to use them....