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>