Re: [Fwbuilder-discussion] fwb 3.0 questions
Brought to you by:
mikehorn
From: Tom D. <td...@ro...> - 2008-09-24 03:42:25
|
Hi, On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Jeffrey Grace wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:26 -0400, Tom Diehl wrote: >> >> What is the proper way to enter an address like 192.168.0.0/24? If I put it >> that way, the netmask defaults to 0.0.0.0. If I put /24 in the netmask box >> the netmask still defaults back to 0.0.0.0. >> > > Sorry I mis-read this. You should use a 255.255.255.0 netmask for > a /24. I understand, except that you are also supposed to be able to do cidr notation. It would appear that I need to leave out the / and all should just work. > > The problem I've noticed is that any new IPv4 objects after 3.0.x have > the property netmask="0.0.0.0". The pre-3.0.x IPv4 objects continue to > have netmask="255.255.255.255". The 0.0.0.0 thing appears to me to be wrong. The first time I got this, I locked a bunch of people out of a network. 255.255.255.255 seems to me to be a much better default. At least that way other services can still function, even if the default netmask is not what you want on a particular rule. Regards, -- Tom Diehl td...@ro... Spamtrap address mt...@ro... |