Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I think we have to be able to store both old-style and cidr-style
> > addresses for several reasons:
> >
> > we have current users of ip_and_mac
> > some people don't use cidr yet
> > we need to be able to store netmasks too, which aren't cidr
> >
> > So a generic INET type is clearer, and will support both address types.
>
> I do not agree ... an INET type is clearer only for those that
> don't know better, so we're now promoting ignorance of proper terminology?
> We have everything else 'explained' in our man pages:
>
> char(n) character(n) fixed-length character string
> varchar(n) character varying(n) variable-length character string
>
> So, having:
>
> cidr n/a IPv4 addressing
> cidr6 n/a IPv6 addressing
>
> Is not unreasonable...
>
> Mis-naming it INET and INET6, IMHO, is unreasonable, since that is
> not what they are...

See my earlier post, and discussion with Paul. cidr is just networks,
and hosts and netmasks will require non-cidr storage.

--
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)