* Mike Belopuhov <m...@belopuhov.com> [2015-03-26 14:36]: > On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't > > cope with non-contiguous netmask ;) > non-contiguous netmasks for IPv4 addresses configured on an interface? > is that possible? what's the use case? > perhaps you're confusing this with non-contiguous netmasks in the radix > tree that are entered by the ipsec flows containing port numbers?
I don't think we need to worry about non-contiguous netmasks here. > however I agree that if we do this for ipv6 we should do it for ipv4 as well > but then do we care about tons of stuff out there parsing ifconfig output? that's the prime question. I would love to move to CIDR notation - are we breaking people's scripts with that? The inet side has been the same for, what, decades? -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
