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

> On 23 May 2025, at 9:00 PM, Mouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> My main question is, I got informations on the internet that it is
>> also not wrong to write 192.168.64.7/24 to refer to a sub network.
> 
> And I got information on the Internet that Paul McCartney is dead, that
> binary 11111111 is decimal 256, I think it is (yes, really - the same
> document also says it's 255, IIRC, and makes numerous other fascinating
> claims), that humans never made it to the Moon, and other interesting
> but dubious claims.
Hahahahahhaahhh!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 192.168.64.7/24 *is* perfectly valid - in some contexts.  In NetBSD,
> one of the most obvious is as an interface address.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I would say that silently accepting it but never matching because
> filtervalue!=packetvalue&mask is broken; that is not useful behaviour.
> I'd say it either should accept it and silently apply the mask, accept
> it and apply the mask with a warning, or reject it.  Depending on the
> details, I could argue for any of those three.
I think accepting it and applying with a warning sounds good.

> 
> /~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
> X  Against HTML		[email protected]
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B


Emmanuel