On 2009-Apr-06 18:45:29 +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> Perhaps I'm sort of old-fashioned, but I would generally expect:
>
> (1) No netmask specified -- use class to determine netmask
> (2) netmask specified using -net 192.168/20 -- use /20
> (3) netmask specified using -netmask -- use the -netmask
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Randall Stewart wrote:
I presume you meant "NOT 10.2/15" here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's
what I gathered by the discussion of "the bug" in the previous thread.
It would have actually done any number of ones... basically looking at the
bottom number of 0 bits and
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 12:21 -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Coleman Kane wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:27 +, Randall Stewart wrote:
> >> Author: rrs
> >> Date: Mon Apr 6 14:27:28 2009
> >> New Revision: 190775
> >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/bas
On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Coleman Kane wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:27 +, Randall Stewart wrote:
Author: rrs
Date: Mon Apr 6 14:27:28 2009
New Revision: 190775
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190775
Log:
Ok, looking at the solution a bit closer, the level
calculation w
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:27 +, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Author: rrs
> Date: Mon Apr 6 14:27:28 2009
> New Revision: 190775
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190775
>
> Log:
> Ok, looking at the solution a bit closer, the level
> calculation was too agressive. Instead we should
