From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Date: | 2003-01-31 01:57:17 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.51.0301311053240.5220@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
record types ("A" versus "AAAA") in the DNS "database".
And the "interoperation" if IPv4 and IPv6 is pretty much not happening,
if you're talking about the compatability addresses. I won't get into
all the reasons why.
All that said, I'm not advocating separating (or not separating)
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I'm still undecided on the issue. I can see
situations where I might want to store both together, but then again, I
can see situations where I certainly wouldn't.
Perhaps we should think about another example to try to illuminate this:
what about storing ISO/OSI addresses in the same type as well? Isn't
that just the same thing as storing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses together?
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-31 01:58:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-31 01:13:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-31 01:58:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-01-31 01:52:50 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |