On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:51:09 +0100 Dave wrote: DS> The real question is whether network addresses should be DS> represented internally in a native-style format (struct in_addr, DS> in_addr_t, struct in6_addr, etc) or in SNMP format (char[]) DS> DS> At the moment we seem to have a mixture, which is Not a Good Thing.
Right... I think you and I have agreed that, if stored as an integer, it should be in network byte order, ala in_addr_t. If you agree that IPv4 addresses should be stored as in integer, then I suggest we go ahead and change to this standard this week, before 5.3.pre1 goes out. I do agree with Peder on shared IPv4/IPv6 storage as a char array (and that's what I did for the data access functions for the MFD re-writes). -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
