Dne 5.9.2012 12:22, Petr Spacek napsal(a):
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
...

If there was no guessing, you would have to write the netmask anyway, so I don't see any harm in guessing here.


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.


While this might be true for IPv4 in some cases, /64 is perfectly sensible for IPv6. Also, I have never seen 192.168.x.x network with non-/24 prefix.

Honza

--
Jan Cholasta

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to