Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:07:18AM +0100, Steffan Karger wrote:
> On 19-12-18 00:09, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > I personally prefer the rfc3986 notation because it is more widespread
> > and, therefore, easier to understand/recognize.
>
> +1
It's about the most ugly way possible, so "best
On 19/12/2018 00:09, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>
> I personally prefer the rfc3986 notation because it is more widespread
> and, therefore, easier to understand/recognize.
+1
--
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
OpenVPN Inc
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_
On 19-12-18 00:09, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> I personally prefer the rfc3986 notation because it is more widespread
> and, therefore, easier to understand/recognize.
+1
-Steffan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Openvpn-devel
Hi,
On 19/12/2018 00:09, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> somewhen before 2.4 we lost "printing of port numbers on v6 addresses"
> - we used to dumbly print v6addr:port, leading to
>
> 2001:db8::123:1194
>
> which is less than clear on "is this a v6 address plus port 1194" or
> "just a longer v
Hi,
somewhen before 2.4 we lost "printing of port numbers on v6 addresses"
- we used to dumbly print v6addr:port, leading to
2001:db8::123:1194
which is less than clear on "is this a v6 address plus port 1194" or
"just a longer v6 address". Now we just print 2001:db8::123 in things
like the
