On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 at 22:32, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le lundi 28 septembre 2009 à 22:11 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit : >> >> That's not the question that was asked, though - the question asked >> was "Under what circumstances would I want to specify...". I hope >> most people agree that it is desirable to be able to specify a network >> not just by its network address. > > To me it makes no sense to "specify a network not just by its network > address", because by definition a prefix + mask is all that > characterizes a network: that's all you need to specify it entirely. > Adding a "base address" would be like adding a "port number" attribute > to the Address class: it's abusing an existing class by adding > irrelevant information. > > I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that, in the IP world, nowhere > does such a "network + host" hybrid appear. You find networks (prefix + > mask) in routing protocols, and host addresses in applicative protocols. You do find "address plus mask" when specifying an IP address for an interface. This is a shorthand for specifying the IP address plus the network, since the network can be derived from the IP plus the mask. But it is a _shorthand_, it isn't an entity in its own right. There is no such thing as "a network that has an IP", there is only an _interface configuration_ that has an IP _and_ an associated network. --David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4