it will be proccessed in ''another way''.
192.168.0.0/16 means ''any ip adress which has first 16 bits the same
as 192.168.0.0''. and first 16 bits in this case are ''192.162''.
On 1/9/07, Artyom Goryainov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And when I write for example local_net=192.168.0.0/16 will it
Artyom Goryainov wrote:
And when I write for example local_net=192.168.0.0/16 will it be expanded in
rules to individual addresses, or it will be processed another way?
well, if you ask such questions then i would seriously recommend to read
something about how the tcp/ip stack works.
And when I write for example local_net=192.168.0.0/16 will it be expanded in
rules to individual addresses, or it will be processed another way?
Artyom Goryainov wrote:
Is any difference when to use macros or tables if there is no need in
storing many adresses
My suggestion is that you use whatever is easier for you to maintain.
The break-even point between tables and macros was somewhere around 5-8
addresses, IIRC, where a small numb
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:43:45PM +0500, Artyom Goryainov wrote:
> Is any difference when to use macros or tables if there is no need in
> storing many adresses
Yes, tables are faster even for small numbers of addresses, and more
importantly can be easily manipulated while pf is running.
On the
Is any difference when to use macros or tables if there is no need in
storing many adresses
6 matches
Mail list logo
