| From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
| Date: | 2000-10-27 23:20:53 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10010271918020.22890-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The way I'm visualizing this, INET is a generalized type that will store
> any 4-octet address plus any netmask width from 1 to 32. This includes
> not only host addresses, but network specs and broadcast addresses.
> CIDR is a subset type that only accepts valid network specs (ie, no
> nonzero address bits to the right of the netmask). There is no subset
I really don't think it should. We should have as much error-checking as
possible. Broadcast address does _not_ have a netmask, i.e. 10.0.0.255/24
does not make sense as inet, it should be 10.0.0.255/32
(ie. broadcast() function must return a value with /32 mask)
> type that corresponds to "valid host addresses only" --- if there were,
> it would be a subset of INET but would have no valid values in common
> with CIDR. We could make such a type but I dunno if it's worth the
> trouble.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 23:39:07 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
| Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-10-27 23:17:00 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |