On 25 août 2013, at 19:14, Erik Romijn <[email protected]> wrote:
> To sum it up, the overhead may be an issue for users for which storage is > very critical, and who will only need to store IPv4 addresses. Users with such stringent storage requirements would be better off storing IPv4 addresses as 32 bits integers. Using 15 characters takes 3,75 times more space than necessary, after all :) > Particularly the latter situation seems doubtful to me, as IPv6 adoption will > only increase. However, even if these users exist, they can still create > their own field. But users like this will be extremely rare, compared to > those being hit by issues or confusion caused by the continued existence of > IPAddressField. Reducing the risk for data loss or crashing bugs is well worth a small waste of space for the few people who are guaranteed never to encounter an IPv6 address — that is, people whose software run on private IPv4 networks disconnected from the Internet that will never be upgraded to IPv6. -- Aymeric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
