Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind

> Paul A Vixie <paul(at)vix(dot)com> writes:
>
> > if this is agreeable, i'll code it up and submit it here for testing
> > before i push it out in bind 8.1.3. i really do agree with the
> > functionality we've drifted toward in this type -- if folks want to
> > express the netmask of a host address without getting in trouble for
> > a nonzero host part that's lost during parsing and storage, then
> > they jolly well ought to be able to do that.
>
> I certainly agree. We should then be able to switch very easily and
> cleanly to the use of these new input and output functions, and add
> the various utility functions that D'Arcy has outlined. Should be
> quick work.
>
> We should leave the type name as INET, I think.
>
> Bruce/Marc: we're OK for 6.4 with this still, right? Even if it takes
> a couple more days to get everything to fall into place?

I think so. It does not affect people testing other things.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026