On 10/22/12 9:37 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am not sure anymore the reason of the debate here. Saving two optional
bytes which are not allocated if not used in a db varchar field?
it started because there is three different lengths of ip address field
in three
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> I am not sure anymore the reason of the debate here. Saving two optional
> bytes which are not allocated if not used in a db varchar field?
it started because there is three different lengths of ip address field
in three different tables, which does not make an
On 10/22/12 9:01 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
many times the management system sits between chair and keyboard :-) ,
being able to read/add human representation is really crucial in this
case.
leaving out square brackets, which are not specified in ipv6 address
rfc
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> many times the management system sits between chair and keyboard :-) ,
> being able to read/add human representation is really crucial in this
> case.
leaving out square brackets, which are not specified in ipv6 address
rfc, should not be an overwhelming task f
On 10/22/12 8:36 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I gave the link to show the ipv4 representation. Square brackets are
commonly used in ipv6 representations, specially in url/uri -- wikipedia
link you provided mentions that..
yes, but when they are used in url, square
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> text representation can use ipv4 format for last 4 bytes:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#page-4
>
> common for cases when tunneling ipv4 over ipv6.
>
> That is:
>
> (6 * 4 + 5) + 1 + (4 * 3 + 3) = 45
>
> Then add 3 for the square brackets and th
On 10/22/12 8:19 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Olle E. Johansson writes:
It's hard to judge the max length of IPv6, since there are many
notations. With IPv4 embedded IPv6 the text is expanded. With scoped
addresses where the interface name is added, it grows again.
ipv6 is even bigger mesh than w
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> I gave the link to show the ipv4 representation. Square brackets are
> commonly used in ipv6 representations, specially in url/uri -- wikipedia
> link you provided mentions that..
yes, but when they are used in url, square brackets are not part of the
address.
On 10/22/12 14:19, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> to me it makes sense to store addresses only in canonical format to
> database in order to make sure that address comparison can be made
> uniquely.
Using the string representation of an address for anything other than to
provide a human readable version
On 10/22/12 8:23 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Then add 3 for the square brackets and the ending 0.
where are square brackets specifies? there is nothing about them in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291.
I gave the link to show the ipv4 representation. Square brac
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Then add 3 for the square brackets and the ending 0.
where are square brackets specifies? there is nothing about them in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291.
-- juha
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER
Olle E. Johansson writes:
> It's hard to judge the max length of IPv6, since there are many
> notations. With IPv4 embedded IPv6 the text is expanded. With scoped
> addresses where the interface name is added, it grows again.
ipv6 is even bigger mesh than what i ever thought.
as i wrote, there i
On 10/22/12 14:14, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Richard Fuchs writes:
>
>> If you use 4-in-6 mapped format, omit zeroes compression and add square
>> brackets, you get 47 characters:
>>
>> [::::::123.123.123.123]
>
> why would someone use such a format when there is canonical fo
Richard Fuchs writes:
> If you use 4-in-6 mapped format, omit zeroes compression and add square
> brackets, you get 47 characters:
>
> [::::::123.123.123.123]
why would someone use such a format when there is canonical format
specified in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc595
On 10/22/12 7:59 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
For safety, i would use 48, to allow zero termination
why 48 when max length of ipv6 addr is 39 chars? did you mean 40?
text representation can use ipv4 format for last 4 bytes:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#pa
22 okt 2012 kl. 19:59 skrev Juha Heinanen :
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>> For safety, i would use 48, to allow zero termination
>
> why 48 when max length of ipv6 addr is 39 chars? did you mean 40?
It's hard to judge the max length of IPv6, since there are many notations. With
IPv4
On 10/22/12 13:59, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>> For safety, i would use 48, to allow zero termination
>
> why 48 when max length of ipv6 addr is 39 chars? did you mean 40?
If you use 4-in-6 mapped format, omit zeroes compression and add square
brackets, you get 4
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> For safety, i would use 48, to allow zero termination
why 48 when max length of ipv6 addr is 39 chars? did you mean 40?
-- juha
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@li
On 10/22/12 4:11 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
lcr_gw table has:
ip_addr varchar(47)
trusted table has:
src_ip varchar(50)
address table has:
ip_addr varchar(48)
why is it that they are not all the same? also, why the common length
is not 8 * 4 + 7 = 39
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Addr
19 matches
Mail list logo
