Re: Addresses in traffic selectors in IKEv2

[Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@conscoop.ottawa.on.ca>]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:44:39AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> The problem is that with a mask you cannot specify as specific a set
> of addresses as you can with a range?

The same could be said for the inverse.

> For example, how would you specify the set of addresses from, say,
> 18.101.1.3-18.101.1.9 (inclusive) using a mask?

To play the devil's advocate, how would you specify the set of addresses
in 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.1 (yes, that mask is not contiguous, but it
is still a mask...)  That is a pretty specific set.

> -derek
> 
> "Casey Carr" <kcarr@nc.rr.com> writes:
> 
> > I second the motion to get rid of ranges.   We are not supporting ranges in
> > our implementation for this same reason.
> > 
> > Casey
> 
>        Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory

	slainte mhath, RGB

-- 
Richard Guy Briggs           --    ~\                 Auto-Free Ottawa! Canada
<www.TriColour.net>            --    \@       @           <www.flora.org/afo/>
No Internet Wiretapping!        --   _\\/\%___\\/\%        Vote! -- <Green.ca>
<www.FreeSWAN.org>_______GTVS6#790__(*)_______(*)(*)_______<www.Marillion.com>