Matt Schalit wrote: > > David Douthitt wrote: > > Sure. I had a choice of returning > > > > /17 > > > > ...and of returning... > > > > 10.2.0.0/17 > > > > ...and I chose the latter. It seems to make more sense, since the idea > > of ipmask was to return all manner of determined info in a script. > > Hey it's you're program, you can make it do whatever > you want and that's fine and dandy. I like the program > a lot and don't have any problem coding for it's output, > but my brain says "Display only CIDR" would return 17, > the same way the other "Display only" commands do: > > -b Display only broadcast address --> 10.2.3.255 > -C Display only Cisco wildcard mask --> 0.0.0.255 > -c Display only CIDR --> > -i Display only IP --> 10.2.3.4 > -n Display only network address --> 10.2.3.0 > -d Display only decimal address --> 167904004 > -s Display subnet mask only --> 255.255.255.0 > -x Display only hexadecimal IP --> 0A020304
Problem is, all of those are standalone items that exist by themselves - the syntax 172.16.3.3 for example, is an IP address and can be used in many places. The syntax /17 is meaningless unless it is with an IP address - and also, I was designing this to be put into scripts. So, using: $IPADDR$(ipmask -c $IPADDR) seemed much more cumbersome (assuming a return value of "/xxx") than just using: $(ipmask -c $IPADDR) And as I said, since the CIDR extension is never without an IP, I went with the IP/CIDR combination. _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
