Chris Albertson <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a nutshell, displaying IPv6 addresses and 80 column formatting > > simply aren't compatible. An IPv6 address is simply going to > > consume too much space for that. It may be that we aren't supposed > > to parse the output of the likes of ntpq -p but still...
> A compromise might be to always write enough of the IPv6 address that > the displayed string is different from any IPv6 address written above > it. This might means the printed addresses get longer as we go. Why try to be a little bit pregnant? If there are IPv6 addresses involved, just have things go beyond 80 columns. Don't get me wrong, I like 80 columns. It is familiar and comfortable. I use 80 column terminal windows with considerable frequency (except when I need more and then I widen the window). I still try to word-wrap emails and posts at column 72. Heck, I still even have a glass TTY (HP 700/96) sitting on my worksurface connected to a network switch's console port (though suspect it can go to 132 if I needed it to), but 80 columns is from a time well before IPv6, and we are now in a time well beyond the creation (though not the wide-spread deployment) of IPv6. rick jones -- web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
