Hi,
ipv6calc currently doesn't support the following format:
network byte order, in octal notation with -escaping
E.g. 2001:888:19f0:0:210:5aff:fe45:9b17 would be: \40\1\10\210\31\360\0\0\2\20\132\377\376\105\233\27
There is a non-zero "market" for this, as I felt the need enough to write a little program that does just this: Take an address, and translate it to that format :-)
--On Thursday, April 03, 2003 07:23:18 PM +0200 Lionel Elie Mamane lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
ipv6calc currently doesn't support the following format:
network byte order, in octal notation with -escaping
E.g. 2001:888:19f0:0:210:5aff:fe45:9b17 would be: \40\1\10\210\31\360\0\0\2\20\132\377\376\105\233\27
There is a non-zero "market" for this, as I felt the need enough to write a little program that does just this: Take an address, and translate it to that format :-)
Hmm, never seen. Where is the non-zero "market" located?
Do you have the capabilities to enhance ipv6calc by yourself and submit patches? If nit, I can do it, but it would need some time (let me say 4 weeks).
BTW: should there be a difference between full expanded, expanded or compressed format?
Peter
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
ipv6calc currently doesn't support the following format:
network byte order, in octal notation with -escaping
E.g. 2001:888:19f0:0:210:5aff:fe45:9b17 would be: \40\1\10\210\31\360\0\0\2\20\132\377\376\105\233\27
There is a non-zero "market" for this, as I felt the need enough to write a little program that does just this: Take an address, and translate it to that format :-)
Hmm, never seen. Where is the non-zero "market" located?
Well, OK, here is why I once wanted this format:
- My mamane.lu domain is hosted, DNS-wise by a host running tinydns - I wanted to have AAAA records
And to have AAAA records with (unpatched, pure) tinydns, you need the IP address in this format.
Do you have the capabilities to enhance ipv6calc by yourself and submit patches?
Hmm... Probably. I can't guarantee it will be "good style" C, though. I'm not really a C hacker.
If nit, I can do it, but it would need some time (let me say 4 weeks).
Oh, take your time. As I told you, I already have written a program that outputs IP's in that format, so I'm in no hurry.
BTW: should there be a difference between full expanded, expanded or compressed format?
No, just the 16 bytes, raw, each in octal notation with '' prepended.
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:15:16PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
Do you have the capabilities to enhance ipv6calc by yourself and submit patches?
Hmm... Probably. I can't guarantee it will be "good style" C, though. I'm not really a C hacker.
Here is a patch. You'll certainly want to clean it up before applying.
--On Thursday, April 03, 2003 09:15:16 PM +0200 Lionel Elie Mamane lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
ipv6calc currently doesn't support the following format:
network byte order, in octal notation with -escaping
E.g. 2001:888:19f0:0:210:5aff:fe45:9b17 would be: \40\1\10\210\31\360\0\0\2\20\132\377\376\105\233\27
No, just the 16 bytes, raw, each in octal notation with '' prepended.
Too easy ;-)
A 15 minute hack does the job:
$ ./ipv6calc --out octal 2001:888:19f0:0:210:5aff:fe45:9b17 No input type specified, try autodetection...found type: ipv6addr \40\1\10\210\31\360\0\0\2\20\132\377\376\105\233\27
See latest CVS whether it fits all cases. If yes, send a note and I will create a new release.
BTW: makes it sense to implement this output format also for IPv4? It can be done, but if not, it saves me about 10 minutes ;-)
Peter
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:26:21PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
No, just the 16 bytes, raw, each in octal notation with '' prepended.
Too easy ;-)
See latest CVS whether it fits all cases.
I suggest this format be accepted as an input format, too.
BTW: makes it sense to implement this output format also for IPv4? It can be done, but if not, it saves me about 10 minutes ;-)
Hmm... I don't see any obvious use to it, but I don't think it would hurt. Symmetry, completeness, ...
--On Saturday, April 05, 2003 08:41:52 AM +0200 Lionel Elie Mamane lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:26:21PM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
No, just the 16 bytes, raw, each in octal notation with '' prepended.
Too easy ;-)
See latest CVS whether it fits all cases.
I suggest this format be accepted as an input format, too.
That's not so easy...I will put it on the TODO.
BTW: makes it sense to implement this output format also for IPv4? It can be done, but if not, it saves me about 10 minutes ;-)
Hmm... I don't see any obvious use to it, but I don't think it would hurt. Symmetry, completeness, ...
Ok. x + 4 weeks
Peter
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:18:53AM +0200, Peter Bieringer wrote:
lionel@mamane.lu wrote:
-----> octal backslash-escaped notation <-----
I suggest this format be accepted as an input format, too.
That's not so easy...I will put it on the TODO.
What's wrong about my implementation (the patch I sent to the list)?
participants (2)
-
Lionel Elie Mamane
-
Peter Bieringer