-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Yep, the problem with the notation quoted in Brian Haley's email is > that "2001:4860:b003::68:80" when viewed without knowing the context > is ambiguous as to whether it's an IPv6 address, or an IPv6 address + > port 80.
Yes, this is the most ambiguous of the situations. BTY, FreeBSD gives. I'm pretty used to this. 133.205.1.1.80 2001:260::1.80 IMHO, the way port numbers are presented is not really a big problem if we don't get something as Dave noted. Would it make sense to include somewhere a sentence that says something like "It is recommended that one avoids an ambiguous separtor when displaying addresses and port numbers together"? Seiichi Kawamura -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFKDL/EcrhTYfxyMkIRAhyxAJ47YJ4w9QHjvaRY2TCiUBRvBFaXJgCeNQF1 lFyVqX2q62QkCwDVTmefEBs= =7ZvM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
