Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] cidr

From: Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)vix(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cidr
Date: 1998-07-21 04:59:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I missed some of the earlier discussion.  Is there going to be a separate
> IP type or is that just x.x.x.x/32?  I like the idea of a host type as
> well.  I would love to sort my IPs and have precede

the ordering functions given in the implementation i posted here yesterday
do that, and they also show 192.5.5/24 as being "before", which
is important for those of us who import routing tables into database tables.

i don't see a need for a separate type for /32's; if someone enters just the
dotted quad ( for example) the "/32" will be assumed.  i'd be
willing to see the "/32" stripped off in the output function since it's a bit
redundant -- i didn't do that but it's out of habit rather than strong belief.

if folks really can't get behind "CIDR" then may i suggest "INET"?  it's not
a "NET" or an "IPADDR" or "INADDR" or "INNET" or "HOST".  it is capable of
representing either a network or a host, classlessly.  that makes it a CIDR
to those in the routing or registry business.  and before someone asks: no,
it is not IPv4-specific.  my implementation encodes the address family and
is capable of supporting IPv6 if the "internallength" wants to be 13 or if
someone knows how to make it variable-length.


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-07-21 05:01:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cidr
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-07-21 04:57:53
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cidr

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group