Skip to content

Conversation

@sc68cal
Copy link
Contributor

@sc68cal sc68cal commented Apr 11, 2022

This fixes #4264 by removing the first IPv6 address from the available_ips that is returned, in cases where the RFCs prohibit it

@sc68cal sc68cal force-pushed the rfc_4291 branch 2 times, most recently from 87b4c03 to cd7b334 Compare April 11, 2022 18:16
@sc68cal sc68cal changed the title [WIP] Do not allocate subnet router anycast for IPv6 prefixes Closes #4624: Do not allocate subnet router anycast for IPv6 prefixes Apr 26, 2022
@sc68cal
Copy link
Contributor Author

sc68cal commented Apr 26, 2022

This just needs an additional test where there are some child prefixes, and then the cover message for this PR and the commit message itself needs cleanup, then this is good to go.

I'll also clean up the formatting of the test to make it more readable

@sc68cal sc68cal marked this pull request as ready for review April 26, 2022 18:51
@sc68cal sc68cal changed the title Closes #4624: Do not allocate subnet router anycast for IPv6 prefixes Closes #4264: Do not allocate subnet router anycast for IPv6 prefixes Apr 26, 2022
@sc68cal
Copy link
Contributor Author

sc68cal commented Apr 26, 2022

We might want to reserve the anycast addresses defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2526, if it's straight forward

EDIT: I might just make it a separate PR

@sc68cal
Copy link
Contributor Author

sc68cal commented Apr 26, 2022

I also see the following note in netaddr

https://netaddr.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api.html#netaddr.IPNetwork.iter_hosts

The next release (0.9.0) will contain a backwards incompatible change connected to handling of RFC 6164 IPv6 addresses (/127 and /128 subnets). When iterating IPNetwork and IPNetwork.iter_hosts() the first addresses in the networks will no longer be excluded.

We are currently using 0.8.0 - and this is probably something we're going to run into trouble with?

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

Thanks for working on this!

We are currently using 0.8.0 - and this is probably something we're going to run into trouble with?

I don't think we use iter_hosts() anywhere but I'll keep an eye on it.

@jeremystretch jeremystretch merged commit ffef78d into netbox-community:develop Apr 27, 2022
@sc68cal sc68cal deleted the rfc_4291 branch April 27, 2022 20:07
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Non-pool IPv6 prefixes think the 0th address is available

2 participants