On 13-sep-2006, at 20:15, Bob Hinden wrote:
In my personal view, while this is a nice theoretical problem, no evidence has been presented that anyone building an implementation is confused about it. For example, were there ever any interoperability problems because someone did this wrong? Common sense would indicate that IPv6 has the same "endianness" as IPv4.
I have hard time understanding why documenting this further this would be a good use of anyone's time (i.e., individuals, IPv6 w.g., ADs, IETF, RFC-Editor, ....).
Well, I think it's a pretty big oversight that this was never standardized in any of the IPv6 RFCs. Now obviously there are many interoperable implementations so it doesn't matter in the real world, but that's no reason to let this slide.
I can tell you from experience that showing up for interop testing after implementing some specification and seeing that the other side uses the opposite byte ordering is no fun. And then arguing with the people who wrote the spec about whose interpretation is the correct one is even less fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
