nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP customer assignments
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:27:10 -0400
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:34:28 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
although that isn't the case today. However, I believe that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1 and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so, 32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if you expanded todays IPv4 notation to accept IPv6 length addresses.
So if you expand the notation like that, is 32.1.13.7 a 32 bit IPv4 address, or a 128 bit IPv6 address with lots of zeros between 13 and 7? They chose the ":" instead of overloading '.' for a *reason*...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: ISP customer assignments, (continued)
- RE: ISP customer assignments Frank Bulk (Oct 14)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dan White (Oct 15)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Bjørn Mork (Oct 06)
- RE: ISP customer assignments TJ (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments William Herrin (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Tim Durack (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments joel jaeggli (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Seth Mattinen (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Owen DeLong (Oct 06)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 06)