[rbldnsd] ip6set ?

[Michael Tokarev]

29.06.2013 16:14, Alex Lasoriti wrote:
> First of all, a *big applause* for Jeff Dairiki ! 0.997 is really 
> _excellent_ news!!!  A new big step forward toward the mythical 1.0 :)

I was hoping 1.0 will never come... that is, spam should stop before
we'll release 1.0 :)

> At Spamhaus, deployment of IPv6 is under way and this was a very
> important missing brick.  We now expect to start supplying IPv6
> data within the year.
> 
> A question pops out: will ip6set (equivalent of ip4set) be added
> at some point, or we better forget about it ? At present, the SBL
> uses ip4set, but the only real reason for not using ip4trie is the 
> presence of duplicates - which are not useful at all from the operational 
> point of view but are used to point people to different issues sitting
> on a same IP that are documented in the database under different records.  
> This is not a big issue, but if duplicates are impossible we would have 
> to do some structural changes.

This is interesting.  I was thinking about *removing* ip4set (instead
of adding ip6set) - because this one is the most difficult to understand
and awkward dataset out of all the other datasets supported by rbldnsd,
due to the way how it handles "uneven" ranges (where the cutoff is between
octets).

With v6 this become even more awkward than v4.

Maybe it is better to allow multiple entries to be listed for *trie
instead of implementing and using ip[46]set?

I think it should not be very difficult to implement this in a compact
form, especially since we have another bit to (ab)use in the trie code
(iirc) -- this bit can be used to distinguish between single data and
a linked list of data items, so that in common case (which is the
single data) we don't need to expand data structures.  Jeff?

Thanks,

/mjt