News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Potholes to avoid when migrating to IPv6. Parent comment

Re:Potholes to avoid when migrating to IPv6 by wolrah on Monday December 31, 2018 @01:00PM (#18795868)
> We can’t re-use dots because then there’d be addresses that are _both_ IPv4 and IPv6.

How so? 192:168:1:1 is not a valid IPv6 address, so it'd be easy to differentiate with dots

If you were to interpret it as ::192:168:1:1 then it'd be a valid IPv6 address, but that interpretation would be incorrect and even so would be in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" range that was intended to map directly to the IPv4 address as a transitional function anyways.

Not really sure why that idea got dropped, it seems to me like it makes a lot of sense to do any v4 mapping in the ::0/96 range.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Potholes to avoid when migrating to IPv6 by cytzol on Monday December 31, 2018 @01:05PM (#18795900)
> 192:168:1:1 is not a valid IPv6 address

Ack, you’re right. For some reason, I was thinking it would get parsed as “192:168::1:1”.

That mapping does make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Potholes to avoid when migrating to IPv6 by loeg on Monday December 31, 2018 @08:08PM (#18798241)
192:168:1::1 is understandable if you were thinking of "1- or 2-dot" IPv4 addresses (i.e., 192.168.1 => 192.168.0.1, 192.1 => 192.0.0.1), but 192:168::1:1 doesn't really make sense.
[ Parent | on HN ]