On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:02:36PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
networks), but there's a conspicuous lack of a type for (hosts). I
suppose if you really are sure that you want to store hosts and not
networks
Well, part of the trouble is that in the CIDR world, an IP without a netmask
can be dangerously ambiguous. I can see why the design is as it is for that
reason. (But I understand the problem.)
A
Yes, in fact it all depends on the meaning you give to an IP.
If you want to store subnets, then you need an IP and a netmask, but if
you just want to store the IP of a particular equipment (that is, the IP
that will be refered to in the TCP/IP header), then there's no ambiguity,
you just need 4 bytes to describe this IP.
And it's true for IPv6 too, storing an IP that refer to an end point and
not a subnet is requiring twice as much data as needed, because the
netmask would always be ff:ff:ff:..:ff
So, for people dealing with large database of IPs, it would be nice to be
able to save 50% of the corresponding disk/cache/ram space for these IPs.
Nicolas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
