Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:00:01 +0400 From: Sergey Vinogradov <boogie@lazybytes.org> To: Mike Bristow <mike@urgle.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ifconfig output: ipv4 netmask format Message-ID: <4D9F5B31.9000509@lazybytes.org> In-Reply-To: <20110408155520.GA40792@cheddar.urgle.com> References: <4D9EFAC6.4020906@lazybytes.org> <7EA5889E-77EF-4BAE-9655-C33692A75602@bsdimp.com> <4D9F2C88.4010205@lazybytes.org> <20110408155520.GA40792@cheddar.urgle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: >> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote: >>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: >>> If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24 >> >> So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as Daniel >> mentioned above? To output the CIDR? > > Non-contigous netmasks are legal in IPv4. What do you do if someone adds > the CIDR flag but the netmask cannot be represented in CIDR notation? > > Cheers, > Mike And boom goes the dynamite. Reverting to my first proposal about changing only netmask notation. -- wbr, Boo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D9F5B31.9000509>