Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items

> I'm not sure why "00/0" rather than "0/0" but basically you don't have
> to show more octets than necessary based on the netmask.  For example,
> a netmask of 32 bits requires all 4, 24 bits requires 3, 16 needs 2
> and 8 (and less) needs 1.  Technically you don't even need 1 octet for
> 0 bits I suppose but "/0" doesn't make much sense.

Well, then it is a bug.  It should show 00/0.

> 
> This is all based on my understanding.  RFC lawyers, please feel free to
> correct me.
> 
> > > > When creating a table with either type inet or type cidr as a primary,unique
> > > >    key, the "198.68.123.0/24" and "198.68.123.0/27" are considered equal
> > > 
> > > I guess I'll take a stab at it.  I just need to know which of the following
> > > is true.
> > > 
> > >     198.68.123.0/24 < 198.68.123.0/27
> > >     198.68.123.0/24 > 198.68.123.0/27
> > > 
> > > Also, is it possible that the current behaviour is what we want?  It seems
> > > to me that if you make a network a primary key, you probably want to prevent
> > > overlap.  What we have does that.
> > 
> > Good question.  If we decide the current behaviour is OK, that is fine
> > with me.  Someone know understand this just needs to say so.
> 
> And if not, what is the answer to the above question.

Don't know.

--  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,
Pennsylvania19026