On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:51 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
 On Thursday 29 November 2007 8:45:46 am Paul Moore wrote:
 > On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote:
 > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
 > > > Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not
 > > > included in any of the SPD related audit messages.  This can cause a
 > > > problem when the audit log is examined as the netmask/prefix-length is
 > > > vital in determining what network traffic is affected by a particular
 > > > SPD entry. This patch fixes this problem by adding two additional
 > > > fields, "src_prefixlen" and "dst_prefixlen", to the
SPD audit messages
 > > > to indicate the source and destination netmasks.  These new fields are
 > > > only included in the audit message when the netmask/prefix-length is
 > > > less than the address length, i.e. the SPD entry applies to a network
 > > > address and not a host address.
 > >
 > > Any reason why we don't just always include them?
 >
 > The audit folks seem to be very sensitive to the size/length of the audit
 > messages, they prefer they be as small as possible.  I thought that one way
 > to save space would be to only print the prefix length information when the
 > address referred to a network and not a single host.
 >
 > Would you prefer it if the prefix length information was always included in
 > the audit message?  Joy?  Audit folks?
 
 Steve and/or Joy, could we get a verdict on this issue?  The lack of a netmask 
 in the SPD audit messages is pretty serious so I'd like to see this fixed as 
 soon as possible.
  
I think Steve may be able to answer this much better than I can in 
regards to audit. In my opinion having the netmask is good.
regards,
Joy