* Joost Remijn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 May 2002, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Thomas Heinz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Netfilter supports arbitrary netmasks for IP addresses which is more > > > powerful than just those IP/x (0 <= x <= 32) expressions. > > > For example one could use IP/255.0.255.255 (IP/23.13.42.0 would also work > > > ;-). > > > > > > Are masks that cannot be expressed in the IP/x schmeme (at least not in one > > > rule) used in practise? Are they used at all in firewall rulesets? > > > > I'm pretty confident they're not valid and don't make sense. > > > But something like IP/255.255.255.192 is still valid and is probably used > quite a lot. At least i use it. It's easy to use a $NETMASK variable in > scripts for this.
Sure, and that can be represented as IP/26 ..
Stephen
msg01083/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
