On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > And the type is to be a 'CIDR', which is the appropriate
> > > terminology for what it is...those that need it, will know what it is
> > > *shrug*
> >
> > I use IP addresses and didn't know. I am also hoping we can allow
> > storage of old and cidr types in the same type, at least superficially.
I believe this underscores Marc's point, which is all the more reason to
call it what it is, "cidr" not some other term only used to schmooze
someone's ignorance to the proper terminology.
> Sounds like conclusive evidence for calling this the INET type rather than
> the CIDR type. And if someone wants to make an INET32 type to account for
> the case of millions of host-only (no prefix length needed) fields, so be it.
You were right the first time Paul, stick with cidr.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================