richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 16:24:36 CST 2010
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:33, Daniel Hagerty <hag at linnaean.org> wrote:
> Ambiguating usages like "Take the least signifigant quad of that
> ipv6 address" to mean either 16 bits or 64 bits, when it currently is
> unamibigously 64 bits won't make the lives of C/C++ programmers
> writing IPv6 code any easier.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. Comments like this are incredibly
valuable to me. I think I will still add quad to -03 as it has been
requested a lot of times, but more to point out and document that
there is a significant problem with it than anything else.
More information about the NANOG