>...
>mouss wrote:
>> Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> While daryl's comment here isn't entirely on the mark, it is close.
>>> Daryl, read the docs closer. SA does accept this format.
>>>
>>> Stephan, If you want to do an implied mask to cover a whole, you MUST
>>> end in a . ie: you must use "10." not "10". If you fail to include a
>>> trailing dot, SA will expand with zeros, but it will treat it as a
>>> single IP address, not a ranged mask.
>>
>> This somewhat defeats the "minimum surprise" principle.
>>
>> In "old practice", 10.1=10.0.0.1 (a.b = 256^3 * a + b), and not
>> 10.1.0.0.
>
>Really? That's a new one by me.
>
>However, SA should perhaps fall in-line with how sendmail does this. In
>sendmail
>access configurations you don't need the trailing . (ie: 10.1 would imply
>10.1.0.0/16 not 10.1.0.0/32)
>
>http://www.sendmail.org/m4/anti_spam.html
>
This one is well over 20 years old; If sendmail does it different,
it is a mistake in the implimentation of sendmail.
% ping -c 1 127.1
PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.238 ms
----localhost PING Statistics----
1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.238/0.238/0.238/0.000 ms
% ping -c 1 10.1
PING 10.1 (10.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
----10.1 PING Statistics----
1 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
% ping -c 1 192.168.1
PING 192.168.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
----192.168.1 PING Statistics----
1 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
I believe that the default behavior of the resolver was changed
between BIND4 and either BIND8 or BIND9 to no longer accept this, but
very many programs that do their own numeric IP parsing (e.g. ping) do
continue to use the old sytax.
Yes in is an antiquated pratice, but predates anything else, any
other more recently invented shorthand that conflicts is simply wrong.
(Now using "10.1." is different than "10.1" and wouldn't bother me.)
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
