>From a network perspective 192.168.1.1/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 are both
describing the same network, the part with 0's in the subnetmask doesn't
matter.
What network would 192.168.1.1/24 mean otherwise?
So it should have worked if you ask me.
A checker to validate that the host part of the subnet is all 0's is nice,
but not working when it's not all 0's is wrong.
Paul
sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org wrote on 05-09-2010 03:18:49:
> From:
>
> Joegen Baclor <jbac...@ezuce.com>
>
> To:
>
> Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
<sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
>
> Date:
>
> 05-09-2010 03:19
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [sipx-users] discussion for improvement request :: Intranet Subnets
>
> Sent by:
>
> sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
>
> Funny, me and Douglas had a similar discussion 2 weeks ago about
> proper user input validation. My take on this is if the system can
> pretty much deduce what the user meant safely, that it proceeds with
> a deduced correct value to let the system run. On top of this is a
> strong warning either in the logs or via the GUI that a system is
> about to run on a deduced value. In the case where the significant
> octet is 24 bytes, the 4th octet would have been moot and should
> have been deduced. In such case, the GUI alerts the user with
> something like, "Warning: 192.168.1.1/24 is not a valid subnet.
> Did you mean 192.168.1.0/24 instead?".
>
> +1 that a GUI subnet calculator is somewhat an overkill
> +1 that some form of input validation is warranted.
>
> Joegen
>
> On Saturday, 04 September, 2010 10:21 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Before a JIRA improvement request is raised, I wanted to ask
> opinions and solicit information on this field in sipxconfig.
>
> I was asked to look at a system that had remote user traversal
> issues. Within a short period of time going through the system, I
> found the following field in sipxconfig had been entered as such:
>
> System>Internet Calling>Intranet Subnets
>
> 192.168.1.1/24
>
> Which is NOT a network address, and should have been entered as
192.168.1.0/24
> .
>
> Once this was corrected it resolved some of the overall configuration
issues.
>
> My statement and question is this:
>
> Statement:
>
> I don't have a problem with this being a free-form field, because I
> can use a subnet calculator in my head or do binary math on a napkin
> to make sure this is entered correctly.
>
> Question:
>
> Should the code behind this page disallow the entry if the network/
> mask is an invalid one? Or should it be lefty alone?
>
> I don't have a problem either way, it's really a low level
> improvement request to me, but I wanted to know if this is a common
> mistake that could be prevented with more logic behind the curtain.
> Perhaps provide a subnet calculator internally as a guide for those
> who don't have access to one that is readily available? In either
> case )logic or app) it is more coding, and is a waste of time if it
> is not a common issue.
>
> Comments please?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony
>
>
> --
> ======================
> Tony Graziano, Manager
> Telephone: 434.984.8430
> sip: tgrazi...@voice.myitdepartment.net
> Fax: 434.984.8431
>
> Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
>
> LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> Telephone: 434.984.8426
> sip: helpd...@voice.myitdepartment.net
> Fax: 434.984.8427
>
> Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
>
> Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
