On 09/05/2012 12:22 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 09/05/2012 11:30 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: >> Dne 5.9.2012 10:04, Martin Kosek napsal(a): >>> We allowed IP addresses without network specification which lead >>> to unexpected results when the zone was being created. We should rather >>> strictly require the prefix/netmask specifying the IP network that >>> the reverse zone should be created for. This is already done in >>> Web UI. >>> >>> A unit test exercising this new validation was added. >>> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/2461 >>> >> >> I don't like this much. I would suggest using CheckedIPAddress and not >> forcing >> the user to enter the prefix length instead. >> >> CheckedIPAddress uses a sensible default prefix length if one is not >> specified >> (class-based for IPv4, /64 for IPv6) as opposed to IPNetwork (/32 for IPv4, >> /128 for IPv6 - this causes the erroneous reverse zones to be created as >> described in the ticket). >> > Hello, > > I don't like automatic netmask guessing. I have met class-based guessing in > Windows (XP?) and I was forced to overwrite default mask all the time ... > > IMHO there is no "sensible default prefix" in real world. I sitting on network > with /23 prefix right now. Also, I have never seen 10.x network with /8 > prefix. >
+1 I would rather force user to choose the netmask and receive an expectable result that to be confused with CIDR-based (for IPv6) values. Martin _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel