From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:41:23 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] network: Add tool for setup IP variables In-Reply-To: References: <20170403071428.11754-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20170403071428.11754-3-pvorel@suse.cz> <7cdee769-8b90-a7d4-bb82-09cadce47f46@oracle.com> <20170403123118.4p2xuzwzq34s46rv@x230> Message-ID: <20170404144123.dhupzdybbnuersbg@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Alexey, > No, we shouldn't do that, at least using such prefixes. The much safer > approach is to > use the private address ranges. > For IPv6 it's a unique local address, i.e. fd00::/8 prefix. We could > stick with default > one and use another one (may be random) in case we got overlap with the > predefined address, e.g.: "fd00:f00" and "fdaa:f00" (the same approach > as yours). OK, I'll implement in v4: fd00::/8 as IPv6 unused network with fd00:f00::/8 and fdaa:f00::/8 as an alternatives. > And for IPv4, e.g. 10.x/10.(x + 128). Right. > May be I misunderstood the 'prefix' variable there. If, for example, > 10.20.0.1/22 and 10.20.1.1/22 would result into 10.20 prefix, then it's > fine, > network variable is "10.20" and host variables are "0.1" and "1.1". No, so far it really requires prefix to be (0, 32), divisible 8 (IPv4) resp. (0, 128) divisible by 16. I'll implement it as rounded up by 8 resp. 16 (e.g.: 10.20.1.1/22 => "prefix": 24, fd00:f00::/5 => "prefix": 8) Kind regards, Petr