At Fri, 23 May 2025 17:00:29 -0400 (EDT), Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> wrote: Subject: Re: Proposal to apply mask to IP address set on rule > > But you said "to refer to a sub network". Whether it's valid as a > description of a netblock, that depends on the definition of the > description language in question. For filtering, well, as we've seen, > some reject it and some accept it, and the ones that accept it don't > all treat it identically. Really? I would be astounded to find any IP filtering implementation, other than apparently the existing NPF, that would treat "192.168.64.7/24" as anything other than "the CIDR /24 subnet that includes the address 192.168.64.7". I can't find any documentation of any IP filtering implementation that would reject it outright, and I've never encountered one that would reject it, though I can't say I'm a user of a great many different implementations. However all I do know of seem to accept it and treat it as a subnet specification. -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost> Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgpWzAYSEaNV2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature