Re: [HACKERS] cidr

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > if folks really can't get behind "CIDR" then may i suggest "INET"?  it's not
> > a "NET" or an "IPADDR" or "INADDR" or "INNET" or "HOST".  it is capable of
> > representing either a network or a host, classlessly.  that makes it a CIDR
> > to those in the routing or registry business.  and before someone asks: no,
> > it is not IPv4-specific.  my implementation encodes the address family and
> > is capable of supporting IPv6 if the "internallength" wants to be 13 or if
> > someone knows how to make it variable-length.
>
> I like INET too.  It is up to you

    I'm sticking to this one like glue...the proper terminology is a
CIDR...using anything else would be tailoring to "those that don't want to
know better", which I believe is the business Micro$loth is in, no?

    If you don't know what a CIDR is, you probably shouldn't be using
it and should get out of networking...