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?

-tih
--
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"