Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:30:47PM -0000 I heard the voice of
Andrew - Supernews, and lo! it spake thus:
> On 2006-01-25, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> > This isn't an obscure old-fashioned thing. People really do use
> > this syntax.
> 
> Given how little code now supports 10.1 meaning 10.0.0.1, that seems
> a questionable point.

(ttyp7):{200}% ping 10.1
PING 10.1 (10.0.0.1): 56 data bytes

Given that it's how I learned v4 addresses shorten, and that it's
roughly similar to 0-minimization in v6 addresses, I would be
surprised as heck to find any other behavior.

OTOH, I never use it myself, because knowing the answer I still find
it requiring me to stop and think about what it means, because (unlike
the v6 version) there's no visual indication that there are 0's and
where they go.  I recently wrote up a C library to parse v4/v6 CIDR
forms, and explicitly chose not to support those shortened v4 forms.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/          On the Internet, nobody can hear you
scream.