On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul Bennett <paul.w.benn...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:30:22 -0400, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Paul Bennett <paul.w.benn...@gmail.com>** >> wrote: >> >> Ah, but an IP address *is* really a number. An unsigned 128-bit integer, >>> in >>> fact, with some additional properties that are specific to the semantics >>> of IP addresses themselves. >>> >> >> An unsigned base 256 4-digit number, perhaps.... >> > > No. > > IPv4 can be represented that way, though at heart they're a 32-bit unsigned > integer (in Network order). > That's what I was talking about > > IPv6 is an unsigned 128-bit number (in Network order), and has a space for > compatibility with IPv4 at 0xffffNNNNNNNN. > > Therefore it is safe, sane, and consensual to store them all as IPv6 > addresses (using the compatibility area for IPv4 addresses). > I don't use IPv6 personally... at least not directly
