Re: [ANNOUNCE] ipset-5.0 released

[Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>]

>> By 'something' I mean either omission of the protocol, or 'all' to be
>> specified instead of the protocol to mean no matching on protocol would be
>> made (in other words the protocol to be disregarded). This will be especially
>> useful for sets with quite a few number of members and will avoid unnecessary
>> duplication - as things stand I have to add the same number of members for
>> both tcp and udp protocols when I don't need any protocol matching - just the
>> subnets and port numbers I specified. Is this doable?
>>     
>
> Use set types without port sub-part, like hash:net or hash:ip, etc.
> I don't really see why you would want to use a type with port and then 
> ignore it.
>   
I don't want to ignore the port - that stays (I need it to do the 
matching). I want to ignore the protocol, but keep the subnet and port 
number matches.

As I already mentioned, I see the need to register 2x as many members to 
a particular set just to get the match required (i.e. ignore the 
protocol) unnecessary when the alternative is to a) do not use protocol 
definition; or b) use another word (I suggested 'all') to ignore the 
protocol match and just use the subnet and port number(s) instead.

Wouldn't you agree that this is a better solution than registering twice 
as many members in a particular set in order to get the match I need?