On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Monday 2009-01-19 23:08, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >>> -A test -d 0.0.0.123/0.0.0.255 > >> > >> Its supposed to work, apparently people have been using masks like > >> /0.0.0.1 for load-balancing with better distribution than /1 :) > > > >Should they not be using ipset for that? > > I am not sure ipset provides an appropriate (optimized) set type for that, > and since /0.0.0.1 is about 2^31 hosts, all the existing types > including tree and bitmap would seem to take large amounts of memory > due to this pattern. Yes, exactly. ipset is not suited to handle such cases. Best regards, Jzosef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
