Re: [HACKERS] cidr

On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> > Also, I would assume we can handle old-style non-cidr address just as
> > cleanly, so both cidr and non-cidr can use the same type and functions.
>
> the implementation i sent around yesterday does this just fine. or rather
> it makes useful assumptions if no "/" is given, and it always prints the "/".

Does anyone have any objections to using Paul's implementation as
"the base implementation", to be inserted into the main stream code now,
and built up from there?

Assuming no objections, Paul...can you get your implementation
merged into the 'main stream code' vs 'contrib' and submit an appropriate
patch for it? The sooner we get it into the main stream, the sooner more
ppl are playing with it, testing it, and suggesting/submitting changes to
it...

And the type is to be a 'CIDR', which is the appropriate
terminology for what it is...those that need it, will know what it is
*shrug*