Re: FW: New function - hostmask

Does anyone see value in a hostmask function() --- description below?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

greg wrote:
> ] -----Original Message-----
> ] From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> ] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:25 PM
> ] To: greg
> ] Subject: Re: FW: New function - hostmask
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ] Oh, OK. We usually need a larger value to add a function to
> ] the main distribution. Would you see if you can find another
> ] user who thinks this is valuable?
> ]
> ] --------------------------------------------------------------
> ] -------------
> ]
> ] greg wrote:
> ] > Hi Bruce,
> ] >
> ] > I don't think I got your email in response.
> ] >
> ] > Yes. I think it has good value. I'm generating cisco network
> ] > configurations out of a database and in the OSPF
> ] configuration area a
> ] > hostmask is used (rather than a netmask) to define a subnet. Ie:
> ] >
> ] > router ospf 18062
> ] > network 202.0.98.51 0.0.0.0 area 0
> ] > network 202.0.98.52 0.0.0.3 area 0
> ] >
> ] > Where as the netmask is used for similar functionality in bgp (and
> ] > interface configurations):
> ] >
> ] > router bgp 18062
> ] > network 202.0.98.51 mask 255.255.255.255 route-map
> ] > AS18062-INFRASTRUCTURE-ROUTE
> ] > network 202.0.98.52 mask 255.255.255.252 route-map
> ] > AS18062-INFRASTRUCTURE-ROUTE
> ] >
> ] > interface Loopback0
> ] > ip address 202.0.98.49 255.255.255.255
> ] >
> ] > It's an annoying cisco'ism. There are ways to work around the
> ] > deficiency. However having a native function to generate a hostmask
> ] > from a CIDR value is a natural extension to the existing inet
> ] > functions already in PostgreSQL.
> ] >

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073