| 1 |
J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 20 December 2010 13:24:11 Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Monday 20 December 2010 12:04:27 J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> For the sake of the archives, I do need to correct you here. |
| 7 |
>>> With the current IP-numbers (IPv4) it's a 32-bit number, expressed as |
| 8 |
>>> four 8- bit numbers (A byte is 8 bit) |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> Of course. Thanks for the correction. I should just have stuck with what |
| 11 |
>> I was going to write, instead of thinking about it :-( |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> No worries, as I said, the correction was for the sake of the archives. |
| 14 |
> You actually used the correct bit-count later on. :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It is a bit tricky when thinking about bits and then writing it consistently |
| 17 |
> though, think IPv6 uses 128bits per address? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> -- |
| 20 |
> Joost |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I got confused on what had what IP too. I checked, double checked, then |
| 25 |
read it again. I hope I got what I wrote right. o_O |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Dale |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
:-) :-) |
Archives