On Monday 03 January 2005 17:32, E S wrote

Hi,


> I think the problem is that technically there's no such address
> as 192.168.1.243/24, you just have 192.168.1.243 in the subnet
> 192.168.1.0/24.

That is just a point of view.
If I tell a other netadmin that he should use the address 192.168.1.33/29 
he'll knew that the prefix is of the length of 29 bits. He'll also knew that 
192.168.1.32/29 is the prefix.
So why shouldn't have the standard lib the same intelligence?

But you right, technically there is no such Prefix like  "192.168.1.33/29"

And in my point of view it is a failure that you tell a methode to store 
192.168.1.33/29 and it's stores 192.168.1.32/29.  
It would be better to inform the caller that the value that he submitted is 
not supported and tell him why.
In other case somebody could get trapped cause he stores the value and 
sometime later he use it. He'll be very suprised if the value is altered.

Objective:
Both opinions have his points. But in anycase the decision should be mentioned 
in the doc. So everyone knows about it and what it means for the user.


regards

Markus

PS
My English isn't so well and it could happend real easily to step on someone's 
toes. So please let me know if I did it?