[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 302 Stricter IP network validator in dnszone-add command

[Martin Kosek]

On 09/17/2012 09:35 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 01:02 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Dne 5.9.2012 12:48, Martin Kosek napsal(a):
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> And they would be correct, because the default prefix length for a class A
>>> network is /8, not /24.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And since FreeIPA is mainly deployed to internal networks, I assume this will
>>>> be the case of most users.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, but what about IPv6? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prefix length is
>>> going to be /64 99% of the time for IPv6.
>>>
>>> The installer uses /24 for IPv4 addresses and /64 for IPv6 addresses, maybe
>>> this should be used as a default here as well.
>>>
>>> Honza
>>>
>>
>> In the end, I choose a more liberal approach and instead of defining a more
>> stricter validator for IPv4 only I rather used approach already implemented in
>> the installers, i.e. default length of network prefix is 24 for IPv4 and 64 for
>> IPv6.
>>
>> Updated patch attached.
>>
>> Martin
> 
> Works for me. I wonder if this is a candidate for some more unit tests...
> 
> rob
> 

One more test should not hurt. Updated patch attached.

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-mkosek-302-3-use-default-reverse-zone-consistently.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 11803 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20120919/9dd3d26f/attachment.bin>