Re: inet increment w/ int8
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050523160820.GD30011@ns.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: inet increment w/ int8 (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) wrote: > Douglas McNaught wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > > > I modified the TODO. I think we only need an INT4. I realize INT8 > > > would be for IPV6 but I can't imagine a network that has more than INT4 > > > hosts (not part of the network address). > > > > Actually "increment the host address" isn't a well-defined concept for > > IPV6. The "host" part of the address (if you're on an Ethernet) is > > generally the 64 bit MAC address. > > So if the network card dies the machine has a new IPv6 address and you > just update your DNS? Do you update your routing tables? Generally routing isn't done to the last 48 bits (dunno where 64 bit came from, but MAC's are 48 last I checked :). DNS to that level would need to be changed though, yes.. :/ (I'm not exactly a big fan of this development, in fact, I think it's a bunch of poo, but then, I don't write the standards). Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: