* Owen DeLong > Yes, it was pointed out to me that for some silly reason passing > understanding, that syntax is supported. It's absurd, but supported. > Sigh > > Probably we should deprecate it as it really doesn't make sense to > use it that way.
It absolutely does make sense, especially in the case of IPv4/IPv6 translation. For example, when using NAT64, "64:ff9b::192.0.2.33" is an example of a valid IPv6 address that maps to 192.0.2.33. Much easier to relate to for a human than "64:ff9b::c000:221" is. Similarly, when using SIIT, the same syntax may be used in firewall rules or ACLs. So if you want to open, say, the SSH port from a trusted IPv4 address 192.0.2.33 on the far side of the SIIT gateway to your IPv6 server, it's much easier to open for "64:ff9b::192.0.2.33", and it will also make your ACL much more readable to the next guy that comes along than if you had used "64:ff9b::c000:221". Also see RFC 6052 section 2.4. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/