<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Given your obviously much more extensive understanding of networking than mine, I'm starting to move over to the "we shouldn't make this fix" camp. Mostly because of this:</font><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">"CARVER, PAUL" <pc2929@att.com> wrote on 01/23/2014 08:57:10 PM:</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2"><br>
> Putting a friendly helper in Horizon will help novice users and <br>
> provide a good example to anyone who is developing an alternate UI <br>
> to invoke the Neutron API. I’m not sure what the benefit is of <br>
> putting code in the backend to disallow valid but silly subnet <br>
> masks. I include /30, /31, AND /32 in the category of “silly” subnet<br>
> masks to use on a broadcast medium. </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><u>All three are entirely <br>
> legitimate subnet masks, it’s just that they’re not useful for end <br>
> host networks.</u></font></tt><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">My mindset has always been that we should programmatically prevent things that are definitively wrong. Of which, these netmasks apparently are not. So it would seem we should leave neutron server code alone under the assumption that those using CLI to create networks *probably* know what they're doing.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">However, the UI is supposed to be the more friendly interface and perhaps this is the more appropriate place for this change? As I stated before, horizon prevents /32, but allows /31.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">I'm no UI guy, so maybe the best course of action is to abandon my change in gerrit and move the launchpad bug back to unassigned and see if someone with horizon experience wants to pick this up. What do others think about this?</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Thanks again for your participation in this discussion, Paul. It's been very enlightening to me.</font></body></html>