ipv4 and ipv6 accept CIDR

[anewton1998]

Strictly speaking, they shouldn't.

[anewton1998]

or we add these as explicit types

[codalogic]

Some sort of IP address range seems appropriate. And seems reasonable that it should be a distinct type from a single address.

[codalogic]

Thinking out loud, echoing what we've done for ranges elsewhere, the following might be suitable names for IP address range: ipv4.., ipv6.., ipaddr...

[anewton1998]

I think most people would think of them as CIDR. ipv4.. is a range of what? I think we just need cidrv4, cidrv6 and cidr. The only thing that might make sense is cidrv4..24 where we are saying it must be a /24 of ipv4. But the vast majority of the time I see this type of stuff it's "I want 24 or greater" or "I want less than 24", which cidrv4..24 doesn't express.

[codalogic]

That all makes sense to me. I agree cidrv4 does seem more explicit than ipv4..