In message <E0wVCvQ-0003q3-00@???>, Chris Thompson writes:
> sender_net_accept_relay = "204.214.110.0/255.255.252.0:\
> 204.214.118.0/255.255.254.0"
> ...
> Anyway, surely you mean 204.214.108.0/255.255.252.0 or
> 204.214.110.0/255.255.254.0, not 204.214.110.0/255.255.252.0 ?
In the netlist module of my "ipset" router, I allow block base addresses
to contain bits set to the right of the netmask; I merely issue a non-
fatal warning to the optional errorfile. After all, some people like to
specify a network block using any arbitrary inner address of the block,
often because they like to give it a DNS name, and pure network addresses
are rarely in DNS. It's reasonable to accomodate them since there is no
ambiguity anyway, as the bits in the subnet part can just be discarded.
Darn, it's a gorgeous sunny Bank Holiday weekend. I don't think there's
going to be much progress on my router in these circumstances ... :-)
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Email : rich@??? 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk - temp page only
# ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW
# ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano
########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
