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.)

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

/*
Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life
winter(at)jurai(dot)net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to
http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53
*/