[117933] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Oct 6 13:29:33 2009
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:34:28 PDT."
<B08D2473-3DBF-4909-820D-1240C49B190A@delong.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:27:10 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1254850030_2992P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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*...
--==_Exmh_1254850030_2992P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFKy33ucC3lWbTT17ARAvkxAJ0fAC/3/W6CIr1DGWUvLrliwEP0KACcCu5I
EKa2ob2WfWjv5gu4vf0t3lM=
=093p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1254850030_2992P--
