Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:16:17 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Sergey Vinogradov <boogie@lazybytes.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ifconfig output: ipv4 netmask format Message-ID: <8B793E28-0426-46CC-AB10-E0257AF6707D@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4D9F5B31.9000509@lazybytes.org> References: <4D9EFAC6.4020906@lazybytes.org> <7EA5889E-77EF-4BAE-9655-C33692A75602@bsdimp.com> <4D9F2C88.4010205@lazybytes.org> <20110408155520.GA40792@cheddar.urgle.com> <4D9F5B31.9000509@lazybytes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote: > 08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> 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 >>>=20 >>> So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as = Daniel >>> mentioned above? To output the CIDR? >>=20 >> 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? >=20 > And boom goes the dynamite. Reverting to my first proposal about = changing only netmask notation. Non-contiguous netmasks are *not* legal anymore in IPv4. They have gone = the way of the dodo. While some stacks still support it, a growing = number of an interesting number of bugs with them that actual = deployments with non-contiguous submasks becomes more hassle than it is = worth. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8B793E28-0426-46CC-AB10-E0257AF6707D>