Re: Proposal to apply mask to IP address set on rule

[Michael Richardson <mcr%sandelman.ca@localhost>]

Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:

    >> express a "subnet" as "addr/mask" and still >> have non-zero host bits
    >> in the "addr" part.
    >>
    >> > Is it? I never use that.
    >>
    >> The advantage of doing so is that you no longer risk zeroing the wrong
    >> number of bits when go from a /128 to the subnet that encloses it.
    >> v6: pretty non-trivial to get right.

    > Is it? As v6 has addresses in hex, it's simpler to apply calculations.

Sorry, I meant trivial to get right.
It's much easier in v6, I agree.

    >> v4 with non-multiples of 8: saves many mistakes.

Number of times I mask with 240 rather than 224 when dealing with /27s vs /26s.
(vs /28s)...