On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:07, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> Trimming zeros on both the left and the right, as the correctly > written IPv6 notation "1::/16" would have us do, is confusing. It's > like writing one million and one tenth as "1,,.1" instead of > "1,000,000.1". No, there are simply two mechanisms at work: I start with 0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16 then, I remove leading zeros as they are not needed 1:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16 which I can further reduce by the same mechanism to 1:0:0:0:0:0:0/16 Finally, the accepted convention for IPv6 addresses is that I can drop a continuous block of zeros which means I end up with 1::/16 Makes perfect sense to me. > Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Flooding a list with half a > dozen replies on the same thread at the same time is poor netiquette > for its impact on unthreaded mail agents and if your mailer started a > new thread for this message in spite of the identical subject and > in-reply-to header then it's broken. I disagree, but if you want to continue this part of the discussion, we should do so off-list. I do apologize that I wrote this in-line and did not poke you off-list in the first place. > Insolence alone does not rise to argumentum ad hominem. "The predicate > assumption is wrong. Here's several paragraphs about what's actually > observed in the field," certainly isn't. If you want to call me out on > a logical fallacy, at least call me out on one I've actually > committed. I called out a social, not a logical, fallacy. As per the rest, see above. Richard