--On Thursday, 02 October, 2003 09:55 +0859 Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, "FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs",
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the question for IPv6 or for NATs?
I am asking the question about FTP, about a piece of syntax in the protocol, and about the options that syntax permits. If the addresses and address references that syntax nor permits are suitable for a particular situation, then one should use them. I am asking only about why we haven't structured that syntax so that use of a DNS name --or some other sort of name if/when it can be defined-- is possible if it turns out to be appropriate.
john