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

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 01:14:01PM -0700, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> A bitmask is a bitmask -- apply the mask to the value and use the
> result!

Exactly!

> Perhaps, as Christoph noted in a separate message, there may be some
> merit in warning when the mask has non-contiguous set bits, but that's
> clearly never the case with the "/bits" form.

I don't think I said to warn on non-contiguous masks.  I was merely pointing
out that they exist but have fallen out of fashion in this CIDR world.
Not that I miss them.  They were a PITA to recognize.

--chris