Subject: Re: inet_pton() spec non-conformance
To: None <>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/07/2000 17:37:36
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:32:19AM +0900, wrote:
> >>>If I understand the issue, you want to change inet_aton() and inet_addr().
> >>>if inet_pton may not do historical processing, my suggestion is to create a
> >>>new inet_pton4_internal with an additional flag parameter.
> >>>if flag 0, accept historical addresses
> >>>if flat 1, don't.
> >>>then call inet_pton4_internal(...,...,1) from inet_pton4() and 
> >>>inet_pton4_internal(...,...,0) from inet_addr and inet_aton.
> >>That is the correct fix. 
> >	I don't intend to change inet_{addr,aton}().  they are supposed to 
> >	take short form.  the spec non-conformance is in inet_pton() only.
> 	For clarification: it's not short form, it's classful form.
> = 10.16777215
> 	why do we use it in cidr days :-)

- so that netscape can resolve the cute fully-decimal hostaddresses
- as an abbreviation when cofiguring loopback or nonrouted (10.N) addresses 

 * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
   smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
   smart terminals.  -- (obscurity)