Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess

On 2006-01-25, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> This isn't an obscure old-fashioned thing. People really do use this syntax.

Given how little code now supports 10.1 meaning 10.0.0.1, that seems a
questionable point.

>> Indeed so. However the current behaviour has neither the merit of being
>> traditional nor the merit of being logical:
>
> Well for networks (cidr datatype) people do frequently refer to things like
> 10.1/16 and intend it to mean the network prefix.

Do you mean they refer to '10.1' and intend it to mean '10.1/16'? If so I
agree; but in that case, not only should '10.1' mean '10.1/16', but also
'192.1' should mean '192.1/16' and _NOT_ '192.1/24'.

> Sure you could argue having
> the netmask default to the old class-based addressing is anachronistic but
> what other default netmask would you suggest anyways?

The one implied by the number of octets specified, assuming you are going
to accept the abbreviated forms at all.

(FWIW, ip4r at this time does not even accept '10.1/16', it insists on
'10.1.0.0/16'.)

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services