ISP customer assignments

Tue Oct 6 17:27:10 UTC 2009

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*...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20091006/fedd6271/attachment.sig>