On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 11:30 +0200, 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)
IPv4 classes were already dead and not relevant last century Jan, so class-based netmask is really useless, if we want to use a default for ipv4 I would use /24 for any address, that's the simplest guess you can make ,a nd will still be often wrongt, but certainly less wrong than using the outdated 'class' concept. Simo. > as opposed to IPNetwork > (/32 for IPv4, /128 for IPv6 - this causes the erroneous reverse zones > to be created as described in the ticket). > > Honza > -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
