-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


On 15/02/17 22:46, Olivier Gayot wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 03:17:54PM +0000, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> That's an improvement, but I tend to agree that /0 doesn't make
>> much sense. If we're going to patch this, it seems to make more
>> sense to reject anything other that /32 /24 /16 or /8.
>> 
>> The  ideal solution would be to accept any prefix length and
>> generate the (up to) 256 --server equivalents  that it
>> corresponds to. If you're going to have syntactic sugar, it may
>> as well work for you.
> 
> That would be fantastic! I guess that would be up to 128 though. 
> However it sounds like a much bigger change than what I came up
> with. It will add some complexity.
> 
> To summerize, after reading your answer and rob0's answer, I think
> that there are three things that can be addressed:
> 
> - The first one being that /32 is not considered a valid value in
> the rev-server directive. And it would really be useful if it were.
> (That was the purpose of my patch in the first place).
> 
> - The second one being that values considered invalid (or at least
> not considered valid) in the rev-server directive are implicitly
> converted to /16. And I think they should be rejected instead (0
> included). Besides, /55555 is also currently converted to /16
> without notice.
> 
> - And the last thing being a possible improvement: accepting any
> CIDR in the range [1; 32]. And indeed we would need to generate
> multiple server directives accordingly.
> 
> If you agree with the above, Simon, I think that I can quickly come
> up with two patches to address the first two issues. Would that be
> okay for you as a first step ?
> 

It would certainly be OK, and if you could also then do number three,
I'd be happy to have that patch too.


Cheers,

Simon.


> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYqd4DAAoJEBXN2mrhkTWibh4P/A/LsEE4JzQASHUVN6C0hpV3
H5Bl56gxZab5virbrP4a/6YXxiD1uQ9kBWFT+jKXacinUXkSDsQwtjs0xNGjpeov
4lv2XauRZZVEbdCPBx0wgLQQEM2s1hukDqw6eANeiN1ra+foAISB6SLx1vt9d7k3
PojcbBN48cLKOZtKWj4F559yPRYt3JBpi20x3henMeIsZB0MNPqYewbTzgKD2NCd
qvUw7vl4F/SYHHrYG0P70bB3yriKFHpVDASxA5VKUkXaX4jjsC1fF6yyFCq8AX2P
6KTQ/XHECxMCrLMmqWmyE4ZgSzg/fEKytBomWAkJtF2H4ORFc6zG4rhaVy7zHd/P
WMsziwfW9O5D66/qym5C9fxawUS9LAJ29J/f3ZXOkpVEq/ugJYSbvwQnbhallLeI
ZUid3zg0k18ujt+XeNaOvYMgZo+DMVUUqh7j6YI5L/e2MCL8ZL8PuplDC+yPP+GW
dFaZ/st+Hdu49PDvU44zwyoKLwNmuaFBGEP6DmxZqj7pnYqJ7KbB9FgLWE8+lcuy
GiIjvYGLR7kJFPEWJTXh2xHmKh+sWtQiFfjk/GyerkyKEItR5cbotxlBBrvu7y7g
Kdresj/IStw7eUm/uSTeAauszlrXGtlInb3CBAyif3EjZotXe3Wc2AYxqhu+SyTX
iGx9lz8pmbovB0TH7GPB
=JkSx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to