Jim Crate <jcrate(at)deepskytech(dot)com> writes:
> on 7/15/03, Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
>>to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
>>think I could save about 25% of my table size.
>
> Why do you need unsigned ints to hold IP addresses?
This is a misunderstanding. I could use both space-conservative IP
addresses and unsigned integers.
> What difference does it make if IP addresses with a class A higher
> than 127 appear as negative numbers?
The mapping does not preserve ordering if not done carefully.