Re: [HACKERS] cidr

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> writes:
> > Plus, it would enable me to use my existing data without reloading.
> > (ignoring the fact that 6.4 will probably require this.)
>
> 6.4 definitely will require a database reload, so as long as the
> external representations are compatible this isn't a good argument
> for a separate /32 type.
>
> The space issue might be something to think about.  But I'm inclined
> to think that we should build in IPv6 support from the get-go, rather
> than have to add it later.  We ought to try to be ahead of the curve
> not behind it.  So it's gonna be more than 4 bytes/entry anyway.

    I have to agree here...being able to say we support a CIDR type is
one thing, but able to say we support IPv6 is, IMHO, a big thing...