Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> > > >     And the type is to be a 'CIDR', which is the appropriate
> > > > terminology for what it is...those that need it, will know what it is
> > > > *shrug*
> > >
> > > I use IP addresses and didn't know.  I am also hoping we can allow
> > > storage of old and cidr types in the same type, at least superficially.
>
> I believe this underscores Marc's point, which is all the more reason to
> call it what it is, "cidr" not some other term only used to schmooze
> someone's ignorance to the proper terminology.


>
> > Sounds like conclusive evidence for calling this the INET type rather than
> > the CIDR type.  And if someone wants to make an INET32 type to account for
> > the case of millions of host-only (no prefix length needed) fields, so be it.
>
> You were right the first time Paul, stick with cidr.

I think we have to be able to store both old-style and cidr-style
addresses for several reasons:

    we have current users of ip_and_mac
    some people don't use cidr yet
    we need to be able to store netmasks too, which aren't cidr

So a generic INET type is clearer, and will support both address types.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)