From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7436bb91b36cca81f0b3d9b63433d2c4@9srv.net>
From: a@9srv.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] telnet
In-Reply-To: <aa14cd69973674f5e8c8ff57044932bf@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:10:03 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a036f52-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

i also like IL in theory (and much prefer it to tcp, certainly).
but it's increasingly difficult to use. maintaining the code is
the smallest part of this issue. most nat boxes will choke
outright or drop the packets on the floor (actually, will any=20
pass IL?), and many ISPs won't deal well with IL, either. you
just don't get real, unfiltered IP any more (at least reliably).

it's also frustrating that IL never got outside Plan 9 and
Inferno (and one now-defunct BSD project). it makes the
cost/benefit ratio for working to get IL passed much less
enticing if i can't, say, drawterm using it.

of course, you could s/IL/9P/g in that last paragraph without
affecting the truth value of the statement.
=E3=82=A2