Re: Common place to keep subnet address/size information?

[Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>]

[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