6 Oct
2009
6 Oct
'09
1:27 p.m.
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*...