On Nov 30, 2003, at 3:50 AM, Philipp Morger wrote:
In any case, one of the netmasks is useless - I strongly suggest that
you wither have an identifier like
id, proto, network, netmask
---------------------------------------
1,ipv4,212.25.25.0,24,
2,ipv6,2001::0,112
3,ipv4,127.0.0.1,32,
or leave the protocol out and do some magic in the code to detect if
the
address is a ipv4 or ipv6 address
I would cast a vote strongly in favor of explicit specification of the
protocol type. There's great benefit to having it clearly stated and
human-readable as in Philipp's suggestion: "ipv4", "ipv6", etc. but
little or no benefit to maintaining the confusing multiple slash
syntax.
I'm not in favor of magic in the code to automatically infer net type.
That adds just one more level of confusion that needs to be tested
after someone installs records. It's pretty darned obvious though if
they didn't enter "v4" or "v6" correctly (and allows automated tools to
parse it as well).
We're all hoping for SPF to get wide adaptation, so we owe it to the
millions of overworked netadmins to not make this anymore difficult
than need be.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡