[Pierre Habouzit] > It's not doable, because the POSIX getnetent answers in a struct > getent that cannot store the netmask, a simple getnetent(3) has the > answer. And that's the reason why it can only store A/B/C class > networks, because in 128.12.0.0/16 is in fact stored as 128.12.0.0 and 0 > is assumed to be a wildcard, hence a network group. > > So well, you can try to fight against POSIX, some tried, we don't have > any news from them since :)
Sure, I am aware that the POSIX definitions need to change for this to work. And I suspect it is a good idea, as the current netent family of functions are useless for most settings, at least here at the university where most networks are not /8, /16 nor /24. :) Do you have any information about the previous tries? I guess a defect report to the Austin group is a good place to start. Did anyone submit such report yet? > I know it's not *exactly* what you wanted, but afaict hosts.* are > way more flexible. Iptables could also help to achieve similar > purposes in a more generic way. This is in fact a very good idea, as it is a lot easier to implement. Thank you! Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]