Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > i don't see a need for a separate type for /32's; if someone enters just the
> > dotted quad (198.96.119.100 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.
>
> I don't see a problem with having a separate type for /32's. It doesn't
> hurt anything, and it takes up less room that a CIDR. When you've got
> several million records this becomes an issue. (Not from a perspective of
> space, but more data requires more time to muck through during queries.)

I would like one type, and we can specifiy a way of pulling out just
hosts or class addresses.

>
> Plus, it would enable me to use my existing data without reloading.
> (ignoring the fact that 6.4 will probably require this.)

Yep.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)