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

Reply via email to