On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:56:01 -0700, Brian Aker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote: > > > Is it safe to assume that an ipv6 col could store correctly an v4 > > address? > > Yes, the problem is storage size, storing ipv4 in ipv6 wastes a bit of > space. Personally? I would start with ipv6 and then do an optimized > ipv4.
I wonder if we're talking about another 3 byte int problem here. In some number of years (as it has been for the past some number of years) IPv6 will be everywhere. I wonder if allowing people to make big databases with columns that *only* take IPv4 will hurt them in a couple of years. The big question being: can we have a full online alter table switching from IPv4 to IPv6 columns *before* IPv6 is widely enough deployed to make this a problem? So I think I'm in favour of forcing everyone to use the IPv6 representation for IPv4 addresses. -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
