[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [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. :)

  Well, you won't change API's old like that, you can add new ones, but
don't count on that IMHO :)

> Do you have any information about the previous tries?  I guess a
> defect report to the Austin group is a good place to start.

  That was just a joke.

> 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!

  You're welcome.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpJdWpifsB4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: