Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:07:12 +0200
From:      Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>
Cc:        svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r190758 - head/sbin/route
Message-ID:  <49DB5E10.9000209@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <8ACFDA96-746E-49C9-B562-65DF82CD361B@lakerest.net>
References:  <200904061009.n36A9K6l063517@svn.freebsd.org>	<49D9DBED.6050805@FreeBSD.org> <8ACFDA96-746E-49C9-B562-65DF82CD361B@lakerest.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall Stewart ha scritto:
>> Are you sure that this is a good idea? Is this behavior
>> described/recommended somewhere? IMHO specifying network without
>> explicitly defined netmask is at least dangerous, if not wrong, in
>> present classless addressing time. Changing existing behavior breaks
>> POLA for some set of users, while benefits are not so obvious to me.
>> With previous code networks 10.0.0.0 and 11.0.0.0 were treated as /8,
>> but with this change it became /7 and /8 respectively.
> 
> Well it is how CIDR works.. and cidr's been around since before
> 1997. I can go dig up the RFC's that specifu this if you woudl like

I cannot see any references to CIDR notation without prefix length in 
RFC 4632.

-- 
Alex Dupre



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49DB5E10.9000209>