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

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> [...] masked bits.[*]

> [*] Note that that would include non-contiguous masks.  I'm aware
> that they are out of fashion (and for good reasons).

I don't entirely understand why, possibly excepting how little-used
they always were (I think I'm the only person I've ever even heard of
who used a noncontiguous netmask other than for testing - for some
years my house netmask was 255.255.255.216, I think it was).

Maybe the prevalence of LPM hardware in high-end routers?

Maybe the politics of routing protocol design leading to protocols with
mask-width values rather than mask values?

Maybe, as mentioned above, their unpopularity with users?

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B