https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4964
--- Comment #18 from Mark Martinec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-03-11 17:44:04 PST --- > question. Should ::ffff:127.0.0.1, ipv4 127.0.0.1, and ::1 be considered > equivalent? ::ffff:127.0.0.1 is ipv4 127.0.0.1 represented as an IPv4-mapped > address. ::1 is the ipv6-native loopback address. > > I think all 3 represent the loopback and should be considered equivalent > in our code. at least, ::ffff:127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.1 are the same addr > represented differently so should be equal. They are not the same address. 127.0.0.0/8 is a host-local network and 127.0.0.1 is just a commonly used address from that range for a loopback interface. In IPv6 there is only one such address, the ::1. If there is a need to group addresses in sets, these could be: - unspecified address 0.0.0.0 and ::, - host-local address space (127.0.0.0/8, ::1) - link-local address space (169.254.0.0/16, fe80::/10) - site-local IPv6 address space (now deprecated) fec0::/10 - IPv4 private-use address space (RFC 1918) - multicast, broadcast, anycast address space Also: - IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses ::FFFF:d.d.d.d (or in its hex form) should be equivalent to d.d.d.d; - IPv4-compatible IPv6 address ::d.d.d.d should NOT be equivalent to d.d.d.d; - 127.0.0.1 should NOT be equivalent to ::1 (and similarly, link-local IPv6 and link-local IPv4 addresses should not be equivalent; -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
