[ntp:questions] outout of ntpq -p

Rick Jones rick.jones2 at hp.com
Tue May 22 23:39:32 UTC 2012

Chris Albertson <albertson.chris at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a nutshell, displaying IPv6 addresses and 80 column formatting
> > simply aren't compatible. An IPv6 address is simply going to
> > consume too much space for that. It may be that we aren't supposed
> > to parse the output of the likes of ntpq -p but still...

> A compromise might be to always write enough of the IPv6 address that
> the displayed string is different from any IPv6 address written above
> it.  This might means the printed addresses get longer as we go.

Why try to be a little bit pregnant?  If there are IPv6 addresses
involved, just have things go beyond 80 columns.  Don't get me wrong,
I like 80 columns.  It is familiar and comfortable.  I use 80 column
terminal windows with considerable frequency (except when I need more
and then I widen the window). I still try to word-wrap emails and
posts at column 72.  Heck, I still even have a glass TTY (HP 700/96)
sitting on my worksurface connected to a network switch's console port
(though suspect it can go to 132 if I needed it to), but 80 columns is
from a time well before IPv6, and we are now in a time well beyond the
creation (though not the wide-spread deployment) of IPv6.

rick jones
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

More information about the questions mailing list