On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 07:32 -0400, Robert Story wrote: > 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
> I think you and I have agreed that, if stored as an integer, it should > be in network byte order, ala in_addr_t. I'd probably want to re-phrase this slightly, and say that IPv4 addresses should be stored as an "in_addr_t" value (which happens to be an integer, in network byte order). The practical effect is much the same, but I hope the change of emphasis would alleviate Peder's concerns about a possible confusion between "real" integers and four-octet values. > 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'd be happy with that. > 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). As a raw character array, or some vaguely generic structure ? (similar to "struct sockaddr") Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
