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

At Fri, 23 May 2025 17:00:29 -0400 (EDT), Mouse <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>

Kelowna, BC     +1 250 762-7675           RoboHack <[email protected]>
Planix, Inc. <[email protected]>     Avoncote Farms <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRuK6dmwVAucmRxuh9mfXG3eL/0fwUCaDDqiAAKCRBmfXG3eL/0
f/7oAKD1CvlAynoujgohT/ZXxtM8v2LrQACg16DP0cXGeh296MXPg81a6R4HdtQ=
=ZQsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----