Send Netdot-devel mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Netdot-devel digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [Netdot - Feature #1587] Option to leave the
network&broadcast addresses of a subnet unreserved
([email protected])
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:25:18 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot - Feature #1587] Option to leave the
network&broadcast addresses of a subnet unreserved
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Issue #1587 has been updated by Peter Keel.
File ipblock.patch added
it doesn't actually allow it for networks like /28, because the check does not
take use_network_broadcast into consideration.
here's a patch to fix this.
----------------------------------------
Feature #1587: Option to leave the network&broadcast addresses of a subnet
unreserved
https://osl.uoregon.edu/redmine/issues/1587#change-3047
Author: Andrei Benea
Status: Resolved
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Carlos Vicente
Category: IPManagement
Target version: 1.0.4
Resolution: fixed
Some of our servers use the network/broadcast addresses of subnets, so I would
like to implement checkbox to skip the reservation of these addresses when
creating a new subnet.
There are a few options:
1) Adding a boolean column to ipblock to store this setting, and consulting it
each time when code needs to decide if the IP is reserved or not.
I don't like this option because it complicates all the code that needs to
decide the status of an ipblock. Netdot works this way at the moment, and uses
various @if@ statements (IPv4? first/last address of a subnet?) to decide if an
address is reserved or not.
2) Creating Reserved ipblocks (or not) based on the value of the checkbox.
This is better than the previous option, but still has a small problem. If you
delete a subnet (but not the children) to expand it (for example from a /25 to
a /24), the old broadcast address (xxx.127) stays Reserved. You have to
manually delete it, but this is impossible from the web interface afaik.
3) Adding the new column *and* creating Reserved ipblocks.
This fixes the problem from 2), but at the cost of a schema change.
What are your thoughts on this?
Would this feature be accepted in Netdot?
--
You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it,
or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here:
http://osl.uoregon.edu/redmine/my/account
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Netdot-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-devel
End of Netdot-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 4
*******************************************
