On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:32:18PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> For named sets, the no automerge makes sense because it seems like
> we can't make any reasonable default choice when users try to delete
> a no-longer existing (i.e. merged) element.
>
> But that problem doesn't exist with
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 07:02:32PM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As of nftables 0.8.1, it seems I can no longer write anonymous sets
>> which contain overlapping networks (CIDR masks).
>>
>> For
Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 07:02:32PM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of nftables 0.8.1, it seems I can no longer write anonymous sets
> > which contain overlapping networks (CIDR masks).
> >
> > For example, I want to write the
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 07:02:32PM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As of nftables 0.8.1, it seems I can no longer write anonymous sets
> which contain overlapping networks (CIDR masks).
>
> For example, I want to write the following ruleset:
>
> #!/usr/bin/nft -f
> define users = {
Hello,
As of nftables 0.8.1, it seems I can no longer write anonymous sets
which contain overlapping networks (CIDR masks).
For example, I want to write the following ruleset:
#!/usr/bin/nft -f
define users = { 10.0.0.0/8, 193.219.181.192/26 }
define admins = { 10.123.0.0/24, 31.220.42.129 }