Why start at 0x2001 though? Why not 0x0001? Then we could have addresses like 1:1:1::1 or 1:2:3::4.
Why start at 0x2001 though? Why not 0x0001? Then we could have addresses like 1:1:1::1 or 1:2:3::4.
2606:4700:4700::1111
Hmm, maybe Google is easier:
2001:4860:4860::8888
Quad9 is 2620:fe::fe or 2620:fe::9
I don’t understand why they can’t get better addresses than that. Like surely 1::1 would be valid?
Edit: So IANA only control addresses 2001:: and up and there are quite a few IETF reservations within that. I don’t know why they picked such a high number to start at. Everything else seems IETF reserved with a little space allocated for special purposes (link-local, multicast, etc.).
Ah, come-on, why do you think Eliza could do that 60 years ago?
Does that question interest you?
They’re just like us.
The point being made is that it also depends how often the ‘true’ value gets used in the code. Tests might only evaluate it a few times per run, or they could cause billions of evaluations per run. You can’t know the probability of a test failure without knowing the occurrence rate of that expression.
There’s no place like ~
.
The SCART squad of the PAL posse.
Stallman is fuming rn
I can see that, but surely there wouldn’t be much difference matching the first 4bits (0x2XXX, 0xfXXX) vs the first 16 (0x0001)?
0:: is presumably all for loopback-type stuff, but I don’t see a reason not to use 1:: through 1fff:: and they would be much easier to type/remember/validate for public DNS servers which are needed before name resolution is available.