I would prefer simple range notation with ".." - 192.168.0.1..192.168.2.100
For all other cases user may implement their own IP finder or initialize IP finders we provide programmatically. --Yakov 2017-01-12 11:37 GMT+03:00 Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com>: > Denis > > The initial idea was to have a simple ability to put ip address ranges. > Probably we need to google how other products implement ip address ranges > in its (Spring) configurations. > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > If to do this as flexible as possible we can support ranges for every > byte > > applying a format like the one below. > > > > 10.0.0.[1-10] > > [10-11].0.0.[1-10] > > 128.[165-165].10.[1-100] > > > > What do you think? > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > On Jan 10, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I like the idea to use the full range notation like > 10.0.0.1..10.0.0.100. > > > One issue we may face is the using of the addresses from different > > networks > > > like 10.0.0.201..10.0.1.100. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Guys, before I file a ticket - should we support range notation for > each > > >> byte in IP address? I think we should. > > >> > > >> --Yakov > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sergey Kozlov > > > GridGain Systems > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > > > -- > Sergey Kozlov > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com >
