Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>     I do not agree ... an INET type is clearer only for those that
> don't know better, so we're now promoting ignorance of proper terminology?
> We have everything else 'explained' in our man pages:
>
>   char(n)        character(n)             fixed-length character string
>   varchar(n)     character varying(n)     variable-length character string
>
>     So, having:
>
>   cidr        n/a            IPv4 addressing
>   cidr6        n/a            IPv6 addressing
>
>     Is not unreasonable...
>
>     Mis-naming it INET and INET6, IMHO, is unreasonable, since that is
> not what they are...

See my earlier post, and discussion with Paul.  cidr is just networks,
and hosts and netmasks will require non-cidr storage.

--
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)