Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.dbzer0.com

11 replies

dysprosiumreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Ohh that's so cool. That makes sense. But is that an official notation or just what the app spits out in his own style?

1
lemmy.world

As far as I recall the official notion is with square brackets, to avoid exactly this confusion.

But nobody uses it, to be honest

3

It's only official for URIs, outside of URIs there is no official notation because there is no official notation for ports. :port is also a URI thing so while you'll find a lot of software using URI syntax or something similar it's the wild west when URIs aren't in use

2
dysprosiumreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Can it actually be ambiguous though? If not, we should adopt this standard instead. It's so annoying adding the square bracket

1
Scooptareply
programming.dev

It is ambiguous. See this which could be either an address or address + port. 2001:db8:1::2:443

That is a valid address...expanded it would be 2001:db8:1:0:0:0:2:443 ...but oh no, the intent was for it to be 2001:db8:1:0:0:0:0:2 with port 443...but you'd never know

1

Yes good example. So it's down to a game of "do I know all my ports." 443, 22, 80, 5900, 8080, etc

1
programming.dev

Hmmm, this is weird. I was trying to figure out the / at the start since no one answered that. I know java's network stack does that but it doesn't format addresses like this example. Java formats individual addresses like /2001:db8:0:0:0:0:0:0 or if a port is included /[2001:db8:0:0:0:0:0:0]:443 so it's like...kinda a java format? Not sure

1

You reached the end

Is this an ipv6-address? If so, why 3 ::: and slash | Spyke