From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A901FF16E
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:21:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3945B33395;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:21:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <6a413f16-71b7-4582-88c4-3ace1f347a26@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:20:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
References: <20250422162739.255641-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20250422162739.255641-7-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <D9I74CTEHVFV.POZJ09D616IN@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9I74CTEHVFV.POZJ09D616IN@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH pve-installer 6/6] closes #5757: common:
 add checks for valid IPv4 address within subnet
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 4/28/25 12:22, Christoph Heiss wrote:
> At least for IPv4 /31 prefixes, this check (including the network
> address part) is wrong. RFC 3021 [0] explicitly allows such subnets for
> point-to-point links.
> 
> E.g. 192.168.0.0/31 is a valid subnet with 2 hosts, 192.168.0.0/31 and
> 192.168.0.1/31.
> 
> [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3021

You're right, I missed that. Thanks! I think for /32 and /31 it makes 
sense to explicitly allow them, avoiding the calculations done for any 
other valid subnet mask. I'll adapt the implementation accordingly in a v2.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel