Address Objects which is more efficient Network VS Range

Answers

• BWC Cybersecurity Overlord ✭✭✭

  September 2023

  @MichaelB the answer could be probably answered only by a SNWL engineer who did some performance tests.

  But in my logic, Network should be faster than Range, because Network needs only simple AND, OR (or XOR) operations, while Range needs to do some more math (hopefully it's not implemented in string compares ;-)).

  E.g. Range 192.168.1.0 - 192.168.3.255
  Start (0+(1*256)+(168*256*256)+(192*256*256*256)
  End (255+(3*256)+(168*256*256)+(192*256*256*256)
  Bitshift is faster of course
  
  if IpToCheck >=  Start && IpToCheck <= End
  then IP is covered by Range Object
  

  I'am not sure if using a Network object includes the Broadcast Address as well. This is important if you got a usable "range" like 192.168.1.0-192.168.1.15. A long time ago the Access Rule with a Network object of 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.240 did not cover 192.168.1.15, I had to use a Range therfore.

  For 10.5.0.1 to 10.5.35.254 I wouldn't use a Network object because it's not within subnet limits.

  --Michael@BWC

  0
• MichaelB Newbie ✭

  September 2023

  @BWC LoL, we can only hope its not string compares...

  I know I have found a few articals like:

  https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/understanding-address-objects-in-sonicos/170504660027820/

  That say:

  Range:

   Range Address Objects define a range of contiguous IP addresses. No Netmask is associated with Range Address Objects, but internal logic generally treats each member of the specified range as a 32-bit masked Host object...

  
  

  But couldn't find any metrics of speed/CPU/memory on different Address Object types. Or best practices on how to achieve the best efficiency for processing those different objects.

  0