Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 15:33:26 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: your thoughts on a particualar ipfw action. Message-ID: <20160805152657.O56585@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <5ca6bec5-0cff-b9f0-8d1e-abc858e32703@freebsd.org> References: <20160805024301.H56585@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <b4eb71be-9490-5c22-d22b-f6a1612e38d3@freebsd.org> <CAHu1Y72jggDjv1uCdS6SMez9nUEPVHvLZHkZP9vFu-VqA5SuGA@mail.gmail.com> <5ca6bec5-0cff-b9f0-8d1e-abc858e32703@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:22:50 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 5/08/2016 12:15 PM, Michael Sierchio wrote: > > Wouldn't it make sense to use the ISO Numeric Code / UN M49 Numerical Code? > actually it doesn't make sense. the source of data doesn't have that > information in it so it would require a whole layer of mapping, > including downloads. and it would have to cope with unexpected > ambiguities and mismatches. Yeah, no .. to address this point first, I misunderstood mention of it to indicate that data was also available in what geoip is using. Given that it's not, agreed it'd be way too much hassle to synchronise .. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160805152657.O56585>