nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP
From: Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:27:05 +0100
Hi Owen,
You really shouldn't need to parse these and it's perfectly valid to reject them as invalid input. This really is an output only format [...]
I don't agree. I think it's actually the other way around. It's a valid representation of an IPv6 address so you be able to parse them. You don't need to be able to output them though.
Finally, at this point, if you're feeling like you have to write your own IP address parser, you're probably doing something wrong. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use the standard libraries whenever possible.
Definitely +1 here! Sander
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Masataka Ohta (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Zachary Giles (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Nick Hilliard (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Owen DeLong (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Sander Steffann (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- Re: mail-abuse.org down? Alexander Maassen (Nov 04)
- Re: mail-abuse.org down? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 04)
- Re: mail-abuse.org down? Tom Paseka (Nov 04)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Masataka Ohta (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Chip Marshall (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Owen DeLong (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Karl Auer (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Owen DeLong (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Tore Anderson (Nov 02)
- Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP Owen DeLong (Nov 02)