Correction: Heiko Wundram wrote: > You make assumptions that my usage simply doesn't fill. An IP4Range must be able to > consist of more than a single block of IP addresses (like 192.168.0.0/24 > _and_ 192.168.10.0/24), that's why it's an IP4Range and not a IP4Network > (which I implement as an addr/mask pair in my IP4 abstraction). --- Heiko.