"small" change request

John Sutton john@scl.co.uk
Mon May 31 19:27:35 UTC 2004

On Monday 31 May 2004  4:36 pm, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: John Sutton
> >
> > Relatively unimportant, but would it not make sense for these forms to be
> > accepted?:
> >
> > # Ebay, 2 ranges of contiguous IP's from 01 to 24
> > ok ip mxpool01.ebay.com/27
> > ok ip mxsmfpool01.ebay.com/27
> Those lines are equivalent to
>     ok ip
>     ok ip
> Both now yield "does not start on 27-bit CIDR boundary" complaints.

Yes, that knocked me aback when I substituted in the ip's!  Treating this as 
an error rather than (say) just issuing a warning could be viewed as throwing 
the baby out with the bath water?

> Should the error checking of CIDR blocks be relaxed if a hostname
> instead of an IP address is specifed?

That seems a reasonable compromise.

> What about the other places in the DCC code where CIDR blocks are
> specified including `dccifd -p` and the dccd client blacklist?

I've no opinion on those, having no experience of either.  But I am now 
wondering if my initial proposal is quite "radical" enough!  Although 
relaxation of error checking of CIDR block checking is good as far as it 
goes, what would go much further is something like:

ok ip mxpool01.ebay.com+24

meaning "this ip plus the next 23 consecutive ip's".


John Sutton
SCL Internet
URL http://www.scl.co.uk/
Tel. +44 (0) 1239 711 888

More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.