Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind

Thus spake Paul A Vixie
> > inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5/16", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
> > inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5/24", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
> > inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5.5.1/16", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
> >
> > I'm guessing that the return and bits for each would be (2, 16), (3, 24)
> > and (4, 16). Is that correct or since they are all ipv4 addresses would
> > the size always be 4?
>
> yes. :-). i mean, the former. {2,16}, {3,24}, and {4,16}. ipv4 is the
> family of the address but does not dictate the size of the prefix. i still
> don't want to touch octets which aren't specified, any more than i would
> want to emit them in _ntop(). but that's my preference speaking -- what is
> yours?

Well, I don't mind filling in the whole structure. It would simplify
a few things and we wouldn't need to add a size element to the structure.
The network function will output it correctly, I think.

inet_network_with_bits('192.5/16') => '192.5/16'
inet_network_with_bits('192.5.5.1/16') => '192.5/16'
inet_network_with_bits('192.5/24') => '192.5.0/16'

Does this seem right?

> > Does this mean we need to add a size element to the inet structure?
> i think so, yes.

Unless we zero-pad, right?

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.