nanog mailing list archives
Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:24:36 +0100
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:33, Daniel Hagerty <hag () linnaean org> wrote:
Ambiguating usages like "Take the least signifigant quad of that ipv6 address" to mean either 16 bits or 64 bits, when it currently is unamibigously 64 bits won't make the lives of C/C++ programmers writing IPv6 code any easier.
Agreed. Thanks a lot for pointing this out. Comments like this are incredibly valuable to me. I think I will still add quad to -03 as it has been requested a lot of times, but more to point out and document that there is a significant problem with it than anything else. Thanks again, Richard
Current thread:
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming, (continued)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Joel Jaeggli (Nov 22)
- RE: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming George Bonser (Nov 22)
- RE: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming kmedcalf () dessus com (Nov 26)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Owen DeLong (Nov 26)
- Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Joel Jaeggli (Nov 29)
- Re: Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Doug Barton (Nov 29)
- Re: [v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 30)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Jeff Aitken (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Daniel Hagerty (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)