A few more shortcuts in addition to /32 /24 /16 /8 omission.
Current Proposed shortcut
192.168.4.0/23 192.168.4/23
10.1.128.0.0/17 10.1.128/17
172.16.0.0/12 172.16/12
and so on.
What is a reason to consume valuable DNS answer space by useless .0 (and
.0.0 as well .0.0.0) values ?
Such a terminalogy was used already. For example in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1918.txt describing private IP ranges.
Support for shortcuts are optional for SPF records providers, but mandatory
for SPF records consumers.
--
Andriy G. Tereshchenko
TAG Software
Odessa, Ukraine
http://www.24.odessa.ua
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew G. Tereschenko"
<spf-discuss(_at_)spam(_dot_)24(_dot_)odessa(_dot_)ua>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:27 AM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Shortcuts to current mechanisms defined in RFC ?
How about to add support for shortcuts to mechanisms already defined in
RFC
?
all -> all (same)
include -> i
A -> a
mx -> mx (same)
ptr -> p
ip4 -> 4
ip6 -> 6
exists -> e
exp -> exp (same)
redirect -> r
accreditation -> acc
I.e. in addition to long versions users can specify short versions.
This way AOL instead of current 169 chars will have 153
"v=spf1 4:152.163.225.0/24 4:205.188.139.0/24 4:205.188.144.0/24
4:205.188.156.0/23 4:205.188.159.0/24 4:64.12.136.0/23 4:64.12.138.0/24
p:mx.aol.com ?all"
As well as secondary goal I would like to make shortcuts to common IPv4
address subnetworks.
Like a
10.1.2.3/32 = 10.1.2.3 (already done)
10.1.2.0/24 = 10.1.2
10.1.0.0/16 = 10.1
10.0.0.0/0 = 10
This will keep IPs readable. Even more saving can be obtained from BASE64
encoding - but will not keep records human-readable.
Others that /32 /24 /16 subnets must use regular syntax.
Short IPs nice to have - but implementation burden can possibly prevent
this
:-(
Using both of shortcuts we will have 128 chars (41 char = 25% savings)
"v=spf1 4:152.163.225 4:205.188.139 4:205.188.144 4:205.188.156.0/23
4:205.188.159 4:64.12.136.0/23 4:64.12.138 p:mx.aol.com ?all"
Pretty short ?
exists, accreditation, redirect, include will save even more.
All of this will allow to keep record length as little as possible.
SPF applications can read shortcut format and convert to canonical form.
What do you think ?
--
Andriy G. Tereshchenko
TAG Software
Odessa, Ukraine
http://www.24.odessa.ua
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com