On 6/12/13 1:54 PM, "Scott Kitterman" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 04:24:40 PM Tim Draegen wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Benny Pedersen <[email protected]> wrote: >> > so in other words: >> > >> > 127.0.2.0/24 >> > 127.0.0.0/8 >> > >> > gives the same error in spf ? >> >> No errors, these are properly formed. >> >> I'll try my best to explain this, maybe something more concise will >>fallout >> afterward: >> >> 127.0.2.0 as bits looks like: >> 01111111.00000000.00000010.00000000 >> The netmask "/24" is (255.255.255.0): >> 11111111.11111111.11111111.00000000 >> >> Notice how you can apply the netmask "covers" all of 127.0.2.0 with only >> zeroes left over? Same with the 2nd example: >> >> 127.0.0.0: >> 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 >> netmask "/8" (255.0.0.0): >> 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 >> >> Now, check out 207.68.169.173/30: >> 207.68.169.173: >> 11001111.01000100.10101001.10101101 <<<<<<<<<<<< that last "1" is a >>"host >> bit" netmask "/30": >> 11111111.11111111.11111111.11111100 >> >> >> Network objects (207.68.169.173/30 in this case) should not contain host >> bits (that last "1"). >> >> Malformed network objects: today's piece of esoterica! > >In the new ipaddress module in python3.3, having host bits are errors by >default, you have to specify that you don't want strict processing to >avoid >them, so it doesn't suprise me it comes up elsewhere. > >ipaddress.IPv6Network(netwrk, strict=False) >
Is that rigidity specified somewhere or is it just common practice? For my own implementations I've always just ignored any host bits set; basically if you want to see if host A is in network B with mask C, you see if A&C == B&C, and that's it. -MSK _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
