On 20 Sep 2011, at 18:34 , Stig Venaas wrote: > I agree it is ambiguous in some sense. That is, I expect any reasonable > implementation to treat ::ffff/96 as ending in ffff, and being > equivalent to ::/96.
This is interesting, because the intended meaning was 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:0:0/96, with the logic being that the last two zeroes are not part of the first 96 bits so they can be left out. So I think we can conclude that confusion is possible... -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
