On Monday, September 20, 2004, 12:51:43 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Christer Borang wrote:
Shouldn't it be possible to use the second and third field as well? For example, multi 127.0.1.0 for an eightth list? Of course, some code would need changes...
AFAIK nobody does this for sets. The iadb.isipp.org codes use bits in three octets, but not for sets. OPM uses the fixed format 127.0.1.* for seven sets. Maybe the 1 is meant as the version (just an idea).
Yes, the additional 16 bits in the other two octets should be available for other lists, though I doubt we'll get that many.
Christer's idea of _23_ instead of _7_ sets is nice, but as he said, my script couldn't handle it without some modification. And for this modification OPM's strange 127.0.1.* would be (again) a special case. Bye, Frank
P.S.: Another possible explanation for 127.0.1.*, it allows _8_ instead of _7_ sets without conflict with 127.0.0.1.
Not sure what you mean by "sets" in this case. Perhaps you mean a combination of lists. I think the bits in other octets (bytes) would be used simply to identify different lists, like those currently used in the last octet.
By the way, does anyone have any more comments about breaking out the JP data as a separate list?
Jeff C.