Re: [Cerowrt-devel] vpn fw question

["Eric S. Johansson" <esj@eggo.org>]

On 10/2/2014 11:38 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> Personally I find the output of
>
> ip route show
>
> to be much more readable and usable nowadays.

you are quite right. It is. thank you for the reminder to kill off old 
habits and build a new old habit.

 > Ideally you should be able to shrink that 10.43 network into a single 
10.43.0.0/20 route.

that is my plan when I replace the firewall in the main office. There is 
a lot of Cruft in the old firewall including multiple holes for things 
people "used to do" but they don't dare close them because they might 
have to do them again. I wish IP cop was sufficiently sophisticated for 
this purpose but I think the UI gotten rather crufty since I last worked 
on it.

You see, I work in the land of myth and magic. A little bit of Hollywood 
right here in Boston.

and WTH is this?
172.30.42.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   !         0 0          0 *

> That is what is called a "covering route". The interfaces in cerowrt are
> all /27s out of a single /24. Just as you could just do a 10.43.0.0/20 route
> instead of the 16 10.43 routes above.

I've got to learn Lua and how to debug in this environment better. I 
should probably explain. I was one of the founding members of the IPCop 
firewall. We put a lot of energy into making it simple and easy to use 
so that it was harder to make mistakes. I apologize in advance if I 
offend anyone but the current UI for Cerowrt/openwrt is not shaped by 
workflow but by the need to expose everything.

I'm hoping that I will be able to demonstrate what I mean by an error 
resistant UI sometime over the next few months. In the meantime however, 
I'm going to try and learn enough so I can be useful fixing small bugs 
and reducing chaos enhancers in tools like uci.

And I just saw your other mail about BCP 38. What is it?

--- eric