On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:48:22PM +0200, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 09/05/2012 12:36 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > 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 > > > > While this may be true for 192.168.x.x, it does not apply for 10.x.x.x > networks > as Petr already pointed out. I don't think that there will be many people > expecting that a reverse zone of 10.0.0.0/24 would be created.
+1 for explicit netmasks. Although 192.168.X.0/24 is common for home networks, it's not common for company networks. When company use 192.168.0.0/16 network, it is nearly always splitted into something with for example 255.255.240.0 netmask because 255 machines in one network is too low number. Regards, Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
