Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

makes sense to me

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> After reviewing a number of past threads about the INET/CIDR mess,
> I have concluded that we should adopt the following behavior:
>
> 1. A data value like '10.1.2.3/16' is a legal INET value (it implies
> the host 10.1.2.3 in the network 10.1/16) but not a legal CIDR value.
> Hence, cidr_in should reject such a value. Up to now it hasn't.
>
> 2. We do not have a datatype corresponding strictly to a host address
> alone --- to store a plain address, use INET and let the mask width
> default to 32. inet_out suppresses display of a "/32" netmask (whereas
> cidr_out does not).
>
> 3. Given that CIDRs never have invalid bits set, we can use the same
> ordering rules for both datatypes: sort by address part, then by
> number of bits. This is compatible with what 7.0 did when sorting.
> It is *not* quite the same as what current sources do, but I will revert
> that change.
>
> I didn't see anyone objecting to this scheme in past discussions, but
> I also didn't see any clear statement that all the interested parties
> had agreed to it. Last chance to complain...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org