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

> On 21 May 2025, at 10:11 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Emmanuel Nyarko <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> I think a simple warning will do. That rightmost bits are not 0s.
> 
> Certainly better than silent failure, but I think one should be able to
> use prefixes like 192.168.1.7/24.  As I said, that is a way of
> documenting that it was .7 that got it added, but that the intent was
> to block the neighborhood.
Very good case here.i couldn’t agree more.

But I think that’s an information you can not easily know sometimes. Or ?
 Especially when dealing with incident responses after you’re suspecting malicious activities from a source ip and maybe trying to block. Might be from a diff network, etc. so should probably warn to use a .0 when adding a mask.

Emmanuel