On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:07, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Trimming zeros on both the left and the right, as the correctly written IPv6 notation "1::/16" would have us do, is confusing. It's like writing one million and one tenth as "1,,.1" instead of "1,000,000.1".
No, there are simply two mechanisms at work: I start with 0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16 then, I remove leading zeros as they are not needed 1:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16 which I can further reduce by the same mechanism to 1:0:0:0:0:0:0/16 Finally, the accepted convention for IPv6 addresses is that I can drop a continuous block of zeros which means I end up with 1::/16 Makes perfect sense to me.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Flooding a list with half a dozen replies on the same thread at the same time is poor netiquette for its impact on unthreaded mail agents and if your mailer started a new thread for this message in spite of the identical subject and in-reply-to header then it's broken.
I disagree, but if you want to continue this part of the discussion, we should do so off-list. I do apologize that I wrote this in-line and did not poke you off-list in the first place.
Insolence alone does not rise to argumentum ad hominem. "The predicate assumption is wrong. Here's several paragraphs about what's actually observed in the field," certainly isn't. If you want to call me out on a logical fallacy, at least call me out on one I've actually committed.
I called out a social, not a logical, fallacy. As per the rest, see above. Richard