From: | "Matthew D(dot) Fuller" <fullermd(at)over-yonder(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
Date: | 2006-01-25 22:20:38 |
Message-ID: | 20060125222038.GL34914@over-yonder.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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(at)mit(dot)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(at)over-yonder(dot)net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2006-01-25 22:46:35 | Re: Backslashes in string literals |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-25 19:21:57 | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |