Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > i don't see a need for a separate type for /32's; if someone enters just the
> > dotted quad (198.96.119.100 for example) the "/32" will be assumed.  i'd be
> > willing to see the "/32" stripped off in the output function since it's a bit
> > redundant -- i didn't do that but it's out of habit rather than strong belief.
> 
> I don't see a problem with having a separate type for /32's.  It doesn't
> hurt anything, and it takes up less room that a CIDR.  When you've got
> several million records this becomes an issue.  (Not from a perspective of
> space, but more data requires more time to muck through during queries.)

I would like one type, and we can specifiy a way of pulling out just
hosts or class addresses.

> 
> Plus, it would enable me to use my existing data without reloading.
> (ignoring the fact that 6.4 will probably require this.)

Yep.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)