On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 05:58:20PM +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
> On 14/03/12 03:47, Michael Roth wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:48:57AM +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
> >>That method of representing an IPv6 address with a port is
> >
> >I'm not sure what "that" is referencing.
>
> 2312::8274:5200 (520
On 14/03/12 03:47, Michael Roth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:48:57AM +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
That method of representing an IPv6 address with a port is
I'm not sure what "that" is referencing.
2312::8274:5200 (5200 is a port)
I assumed the previous patch
but the representation seems
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:48:57AM +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
> That method of representing an IPv6 address with a port is
I'm not sure what "that" is referencing. I assumed the previous patch
but the representation seems to be the same?
> discouraged because of its ambiguity. Referencing to RFC5952
