Re: [HACKERS] cidr

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think we have to be able to store both old-style and cidr-style
> addresses for several reasons:
>
>     we have current users of ip_and_mac
>     some people don't use cidr yet
>     we need to be able to store netmasks too, which aren't cidr
>
> So a generic INET type is clearer, and will support both address types.

    I do not agree ... an INET type is clearer only for those that
don't know better, so we're now promoting ignorance of proper terminology?
We have everything else 'explained' in our man pages:

  char(n)        character(n)             fixed-length character string
  varchar(n)     character varying(n)     variable-length character string

    So, having:

  cidr        n/a            IPv4 addressing
  cidr6        n/a            IPv6 addressing

    Is not unreasonable...

    Mis-naming it INET and INET6, IMHO, is unreasonable, since that is
not what they are...