Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Vlad Yasevich
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 7:26 pm

David Miller wrote:

Ugh... you are right.  Changing the formating across the board is a non-starter,
as much as I would still like to see it.

Upon rereading Chunk's text and re-reading RFC 2732 and RFC 4291, I've come
to the conclusion that any application that attempts to compare textual
representations of IPv6 addresses is misguided at best.

There are multiple different forms of presenting addresses, all of which
are valid and non of which will provide for sting equality.  Regardless of
how we represent our IPv6 addresses, there is a chance that it will cause
interoperability issues and the only way to truly solve it is to change
applications to compare addresses in their true numerical representation.

-vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
IPv6 address printf format specifier, Chuck Lever, (Mon Mar 16, 9:24 am)
Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier, Vlad Yasevich, (Mon Mar 16, 10:13 am)
Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier, David Miller, (Wed Mar 18, 6:58 pm)
Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier, Vlad Yasevich, (Wed Mar 18, 7:26 pm)
Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier, David Miller, (Wed Mar 18, 10:30 pm)
Re: IPv6 address printf format specifier, Chuck Lever, (Thu Mar 19, 9:11 am)