Subject: Re: RFC: route(8) host/bits vs. net/bits
To: Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach@NetBSD.org>
From: Christopher W. Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/12/2005 11:09:32
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach@NetBSD.org> writes:
> 172.31.73/24 link#1 UC 3 0 - fxp0
> The address is then misinterpreted as 172.31.0.73.
> Is the current behavior really expected? IMHO seems to violate POLA.
It may violate POLA, but it is expected if you've been around
networking a while. That address is by default a class B. The
/24 makes it a subnet, and one would expect it to be 172.31.0.73.
Probably the correct change is for route to display
172.31.73.0/24, so that it is clear. If I type in 10.1 as an
address, I expect that to be interpreted as 10.0.0.1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----