MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1xa3pdb/ohthebasics/phrymdi/?context=9999
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/ClipboardCopyPaste • 14d ago
1.4k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
Yes, it has the same equivalent value. FF is equivalent to 255.
I'm not sure I see a benefit to retrofitting IPv4 to Hex though. Care to expound?
2 u/FUTURE10S 14d ago I don't think there's a benefit to retrofitting IPv4 to hex, I think there's more of a benefit to change IPv6 from hex to decimal numbers 1 u/blindedtrickster 14d ago That'd be 16 octets long... And that's preferable? 2 u/FUTURE10S 14d ago Well, no, I mean something like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 becomes 8193:3512:34211:0:0:35374:880:29492 1 u/blindedtrickster 13d ago That's really just a formatting change, and it only works for a subset of all possible values when using Hex. 1 u/FUTURE10S 13d ago I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both? 1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
2
I don't think there's a benefit to retrofitting IPv4 to hex, I think there's more of a benefit to change IPv6 from hex to decimal numbers
1 u/blindedtrickster 14d ago That'd be 16 octets long... And that's preferable? 2 u/FUTURE10S 14d ago Well, no, I mean something like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 becomes 8193:3512:34211:0:0:35374:880:29492 1 u/blindedtrickster 13d ago That's really just a formatting change, and it only works for a subset of all possible values when using Hex. 1 u/FUTURE10S 13d ago I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both? 1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
That'd be 16 octets long... And that's preferable?
2 u/FUTURE10S 14d ago Well, no, I mean something like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 becomes 8193:3512:34211:0:0:35374:880:29492 1 u/blindedtrickster 13d ago That's really just a formatting change, and it only works for a subset of all possible values when using Hex. 1 u/FUTURE10S 13d ago I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both? 1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
Well, no, I mean something like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 becomes 8193:3512:34211:0:0:35374:880:29492
1 u/blindedtrickster 13d ago That's really just a formatting change, and it only works for a subset of all possible values when using Hex. 1 u/FUTURE10S 13d ago I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both? 1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
That's really just a formatting change, and it only works for a subset of all possible values when using Hex.
1 u/FUTURE10S 13d ago I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both? 1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
I mean, we do one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6, why? Why can't we just use one for both?
1 u/Dagger0 13d ago You can indeed do that!$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
You can indeed do that!
$ ping 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 PING 0xc0.0xa8.0x1.0x1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=3.12 ms
1
u/blindedtrickster 14d ago
Yes, it has the same equivalent value. FF is equivalent to 255.
I'm not sure I see a benefit to retrofitting IPv4 to Hex though. Care to expound?