On 29/07/2016 4:53 PM, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote:
Am 28.07.2016 um 23:48 schrieb Lee Brown <[email protected]>:
That makes sense to me. Your /20 range encompasses 201.222.16.0 -
201.222.31.255.
If you want 201.222.20.0-201.222.31.255, you'll need 3 ranges:
201.222.20.0/22 (201.222.20.0-201.222.23.255)
201.222.24.0/22 (201.222.24.0-201.222.27.255)
201.222.28.0/22 (201.222.28.0-201.222.31.255)
Ian, Julian and Lee,
Thank you vary much for your responses. In order not bloat the thread, I answer
only to one message.
I found the problem. As a matter of fact, the respective IP ranges in the
LACNIC delegation statistics file are 3 adjacent blocks with 1024 addresses,
i.e. those that you listed in your message above:
$grep 201.222.2 /usr/local/etc/ipdb/IPRanges/lacnic.dat
lacnic|BR|ipv4|201.222.20.0|1024|20140710|allocated|164725
lacnic|BR|ipv4|201.222.24.0|1024|20140630|allocated|138376
lacnic|BR|ipv4|201.222.28.0|1024|20140701|allocated|129095
However, my database compilation combines adjacent blocks with the same country
code, and the ranges above turn into one block of 3072 addresses, which
obviously doesn't have a valid netmask - log(3072) = 11,5849625. My divert
filter daemon is agnostic about this, because the exact ranges are stored in
the database and for the purpose of country code lookup the address lookup
routine doesn't need to work with netmasks. I choose it this way, because I
read some RIR documentation stating that delegated address blocks are not
necessarily complete CIDR ranges. Even if the above ranges conform to CIDR,
future delegations may be different, and I wanted to stay on the safe side.
So far so good. Now, the actual problem with ipfw tables in the given context
is that explicit IP ranges are not accepted but ranges must be given in CIDR
notation, and I simply forgot about the tiny detail that CIDR is inherently
granular, and that this may of course conflict with my CC/IP database
optimization strategy. Without combining adjacencies, the complete database has
165815 instead of 83274 records. Perhaps, I add an option to the db tool for
CIDR conformity. In this respect, it is not sufficient to forget about
optimization but I need to check also whether, the delegation files contain
already some non-CIDR ranges, which needs to be broken down.
there is code to take ranges and produce cidr sets.
We used to have exactly that code in the appletalk code before we took
it out. Appletalk uses ranges.
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/release/3.2.0/sys/netatalk/at_control.c?view=annotate#l703
maybe you can find other versions on the net.
however if you fully populate the table, you will get the correct
result because more specific entries will
override less specific entries. To do that you would have to have a
way to describe to your program what
value each table entry should output.
If you did what you do now, then you would specify the value for the
required countries, and give a default falue for "all others".
aggregation of adjacent ranges with same value would be an optimisation.
Best regards
Rolf
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
