Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind

> Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> writes:
>
> > if this is agreeable, i'll code it up and submit it here for testing
> > before i push it out in bind 8.1.3.  i really do agree with the
> > functionality we've drifted toward in this type -- if folks want to
> > express the netmask of a host address without getting in trouble for
> > a nonzero host part that's lost during parsing and storage, then
> > they jolly well ought to be able to do that.
>
> I certainly agree.  We should then be able to switch very easily and
> cleanly to the use of these new input and output functions, and add
> the various utility functions that D'Arcy has outlined.  Should be
> quick work.
>
> We should leave the type name as INET, I think.
>
> Bruce/Marc: we're OK for 6.4 with this still, right?  Even if it takes
> a couple more days to get everything to fall into place?

I think so.  It does not affect people testing other things.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026