Last modified: 2013-11-24 01:54:22 UTC
When we rangeblock webhosts, some people have bots or other legitimate on their own dedicated subnets. When a legitimate user requests an exemption for their bot, as occured with the IPv6 rangeblock of OVH, we should not have to replace a single block with many (2^16+2^15...2^7=2^17-2^7). It would be very nice if we could do something like "Steward X exempted 2001:db8:2:/48 from the rangeblock 2001:db8::/32 (until June 2013)". This would also go well with local rangeblocking.
I think you're asking two separate things: 1) a global whitelist for global block, in addition to local whitelists; 2) the possibility to whitelist IP ranges. Both seem of extremely low priority, anyway I suggest to split the bug.
Not quite. I'm only asking for the ability to whitelist certain ranges/individual addresses, which I don't really think are separate.
(In reply to comment #0) > When we rangeblock webhosts, some people have bots or other legitimate on their > own dedicated subnets. When a legitimate user requests an exemption for their > bot, as occured with the IPv6 rangeblock of OVH, we should not have to replace > a single block with many (2^16+2^15...2^7=2^17-2^7). It would be very nice if > we could do something like "Steward X exempted 2001:db8:2:/48 from the > rangeblock 2001:db8::/32 (until June 2013)". > > This would also go well with local rangeblocking. I'm going to assume this bug is just about global blocks. Updating the bug summary accordingly (from "Allow exceptions to rangeblocks" to "Allow exceptions to global IP rangeblocks").
(In reply to comment #2) > Not quite. I'm only asking for the ability to whitelist certain > ranges/individual addresses, which I don't really think are separate. Whitelisting is already possible, but only locally of course. I've not checked about whitelisting IP ranges, but I assume you did?
Local IP range whitelisting works, I've seen it in use on itwiki.
Ok, so only the global part is missing.
