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*...
pgpckqTyuip4k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
