From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "0/0". Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:35:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20081014104621.3c2ce4d3@extreme> <20081015014624.GA3251@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Krzysztof Oledzki , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:42328 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751672AbYJOPfK (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:35:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081015014624.GA3251@gondor.apana.org.au> (Herbert Xu's message of "Wed\, 15 Oct 2008 09\:46\:24 +0800") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Herbert Xu writes: > How about just keeping Alexey's code? POSIX doesn't restrict > the IP address format command utilities should accept. So to > me 127.2.0.0 is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the > partial address 127.2. Then it would be better to disallow such things. The normal meaning for "127.2" was always 127.0.0.2, and it was widely documented and used (though perhaps in RFCs, not in POSIX). Some people use "10.1" syntax all the time. > This also has the benefit of not breaking any existing scripts > that already work. The scripts which are broken will remain > broken which doesn't surprise anyone. Any script which uses 127.2 to mean 127.2.0.0 is IMHO broken, though I have never seen anything like that. Rules always have been simple: 10 - 10.0.0.0 10.1 - 10.0.0.1 10.1.2 - 10.0.1.2 If it can't stay this way, lets remove this shortened notation completely. -- Krzysztof Halasa