Subnet blocking support now added to BlacklistFilter. Only IPv4 is supported for now, if anyone wants to have a go at IPv6 support, feel free :-)
Have a look and see if it looks good. /niklas On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:54 PM, 이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niklas, thanks for the information. Wikipedia rocks! :) > > I agree with your idea. We could make it pretty generic so it can be used > anywhere in MINA. > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:51:04 +0900, Niklas Gustavsson > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seems like CIDR notation is available for IP6 as well: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Network_notation > > > > How about allowing for CIDR submasks as well as IP address directly? > > Thus replacing ranges with subnets. That would be a fine solution for > > me and I would be happy to implement it. > > > > /niklas > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:18 PM, 이희승 (Trustin Lee) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm actually not sure if CIDR submasks can be used for IPv6 addresses. > >> I am also not really used to IPv6 yet. :) > >> > >> At least for IPv4 addresses, I believe CIDR submask is what users want. > >> > >> 2008-03-13 (목), 08:42 +0100, Niklas Gustavsson 쓰시길: > >> > >> > >> > Now, this is certainly not my area of expertise so bare with me. Isn't > >> > CIDR submasks only for IP4 addresses? Also, they can not represent > >> any > >> > range in IP4 but blocking on subnets is probably what users need, > >> > right? > >> > > >> > /niklas > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:13 AM, 이희승 (Trustin Lee) > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > By using submask, we can merge blacklist range and blacklist, > >> because a > >> > > single IP address can be represented with 32-bit submask (i.e. > >> > > 192.168.10.25/32 = 192.168.10.25). > >> > > > >> > > 2008-03-12 (수), 20:39 -0400, Mark Webb 쓰시길: > >> > > > >> > > > Couple points to make: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Why make a blacklist range and a blacklist. Why not just > >> add the > >> > > > range to the blacklist? > >> > > > 2. Should there be more synchronizing of the adding/removing > >> and the > >> > > > check for blocked addresses? What happens if an add and a > >> check for a > >> > > > blocked address happen at the same time? > >> > > > > >> > > > --Mark > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Niklas Gustavsson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Niklas Gustavsson > >> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > > Cool, so I'll add it and ask for a review when its in SVN. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Alright, the code is in (rev 636538), have a go at it. I'm > >> particulary > >> > > > > interested in a review of the IP comparison code, not sure I > >> got it > >> > > > > correct. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > /niklas > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > >> > > -- > >> > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > >> > > -- > >> > > http://gleamynode.net/ > >> > > > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > >> -- > >> what we call human nature is actually human habit > >> -- > >> http://gleamynode.net/ > >> > > > > -- > Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss division, Red Hat > > > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ >
