Hi Brent, All, On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 01:05:20AM +0000, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> > Would it also be possible to have the dst_net appended with mask length > > and a slightly larger DB field to accomodate it? 255.255.255.255/25 > > would be a CHAR(18) instead of CHAR(15) but it would be really nice to > > have this information from BGP or the sflow prefix field added in so a > > network map isn't needed. > > Netmasks. They are not there but i've recently received two more > requests in a row for such a feature. All coming from people making > use of the BGP feature. Hence, this is on my todo list and will > appear very soon - would say roughly 3-4 weeks. Would such approx > timeline match your expectations? To say at this propo that network masks have now been implemented as aggregation primitives. It's all published in the CVS. Network masks lie in a different field from the IP prefix - so that this implementation can get handy for other, ie. statistical, purposes. Indeed, SQL language manipulation can be used to merge masks and IP prefixes together on output. Also, good property of this way of proceeding is that by keeping masks in a separate field, they can be defined as INT(1) which is space-savy compared to a string representation within the IP prefix field. I already see this argument will not particularly impress the PosgreSQL friends but it's done for the sake of selecting a generic approach (not all RDBMS packages have the luxury of 'inet' types ...). Cheers, Paolo _______________________________________________ pmacct-discussion mailing list http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
