From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: Strange thing with iptables Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:52:07 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040911175207.GA9095@alpha.home.local> References: <1094732295.8900.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Szabolcs Gyurko , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Martin Josefsson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1094732295.8900.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 02:18:15PM +0200, Martin Josefsson wrote: > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -s $machine/255.255.0.255 -j ACCEPT > > > > > > What I was surprised on is the netmask. Is this a feature or a bug? I mean > > this is quite strange netmask for me. > > It's a feature :) > It doesn't make the current code any more complicated. > And ther are actually people using it to do weird stuff... I second this. I actually had to use the same principle on some equipment (alteon) which also supports this, and it saved me a lot of filters when writing anti-spoofing rules on a port where two IP networks coexist. Cheers, Willy