An integer index doesn't do it for me. Maybe I'm the only one. It is part of an IP address. It isn't a new concept to think about the network and host parts of an IP address separately. Why would we change the notation from dotted quad (ipv4) to integer just because we mask out the network part? Am I alone in this?
Carl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Benton <[email protected]> wrote: > What if we just call it 'address_index' and make it an integer representing > the offset from the network start address? > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Carl Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: >> > How is 0.0.0.1 a host address? That isn't a valid IP address, AFAIK. >> >> It isn't a valid *IP* address without the network part. However, it >> can be referred to as the "host address on the network" or the host >> part of the IP address. >> >> Carl >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Kevin Benton > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
