On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: > 08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет: >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: >>> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: >>>> If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24 >>> >>> So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as Daniel >>> mentioned above? To output the CIDR? >> >> Non-contigous netmasks are legal in IPv4. What do you do if someone adds >> the CIDR flag but the netmask cannot be represented in CIDR notation? > > And boom goes the dynamite. Reverting to my first proposal about changing > only netmask notation.
Non-contiguous netmasks are *not* legal anymore in IPv4. They have gone the way of the dodo. While some stacks still support it, a growing number of an interesting number of bugs with them that actual deployments with non-contiguous submasks becomes more hassle than it is worth. Warner _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
