* Owen DeLong
Yes, it was pointed out to me that for some silly reason passing understanding, that syntax is supported. It's absurd, but supported. Sigh
Probably we should deprecate it as it really doesn't make sense to use it that way.
It absolutely does make sense, especially in the case of IPv4/IPv6 translation. For example, when using NAT64, "64:ff9b::192.0.2.33" is an example of a valid IPv6 address that maps to 192.0.2.33. Much easier to relate to for a human than "64:ff9b::c000:221" is. Similarly, when using SIIT, the same syntax may be used in firewall rules or ACLs. So if you want to open, say, the SSH port from a trusted IPv4 address 192.0.2.33 on the far side of the SIIT gateway to your IPv6 server, it's much easier to open for "64:ff9b::192.0.2.33", and it will also make your ACL much more readable to the next guy that comes along than if you had used "64:ff9b::c000:221". Also see RFC 6052 section 2.4. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/