Discussion:
man cidr_table(5) enhancement
(too old to reply)
Scott Kitterman
2016-07-29 21:34:52 UTC
Permalink
I'm writing this as a result of a bug [1] filed by a Debian user that the
cidr_table man page wasn't completely clear about acceptable notation for
IPv6. I find it's clear enough myself, but in light of the user confusion I
do think including an IPv6 address in the example might help.

Please see the attached trivial patch for consideration. It uses the IETF
sanctioned example IPv6 addresses, because why not?

Scott K


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832803
Wietse Venema
2016-07-29 21:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kitterman
I'm writing this as a result of a bug [1] filed by a Debian user that the
cidr_table man page wasn't completely clear about acceptable notation for
IPv6. I find it's clear enough myself, but in light of the user confusion I
do think including an IPv6 address in the example might help.
Please see the attached trivial patch for consideration. It uses the IETF
sanctioned example IPv6 addresses, because why not?
Scott K
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832803
Just checking: is 2001:db8::/32 a non-routed network?

Wietse
Wietse Venema
2016-07-29 22:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wietse Venema
Post by Scott Kitterman
I'm writing this as a result of a bug [1] filed by a Debian user that the
cidr_table man page wasn't completely clear about acceptable notation for
IPv6. I find it's clear enough myself, but in light of the user confusion I
do think including an IPv6 address in the example might help.
Please see the attached trivial patch for consideration. It uses the IETF
sanctioned example IPv6 addresses, because why not?
Scott K
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832803
Just checking: is 2001:db8::/32 a non-routed network?
According to RFC 3849 it is reserved for documentation.

Wietse

Loading...