On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
So, if I wanted an ip6 mechanism for the loopback address, it could be either:
ip6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
or
ip6:::1
Is that what was intended? I'm guessing not and it's another erratum that's
That is what was intended. What possible problem is there with it? Why
would we want to make SPF records longer?
There are, in fact, multiple ways of writing an IPv6 address. For instance,
the above could also be written as:
ip6:::0:1
ip6:::0:0:1
ip6:::0:0:0:1
ip6:::0:0:0:0:1
...
Not to mention:
ip6:0::1
ip6:0:0::1
ip6:0:0:0::1
...
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735