Open Stack

On 03/20/2015 03:09 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net
> <mailto:carl at ecbaldwin.net>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Dean Troyer <dtroyer at gmail.com
>     <mailto:dtroyer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > So do a CIDR host address:0.0.0.1/24 <http://0.0.0.1/24> can be merged into a subnet just as
>     > easily as it can be masked out.
>
>     Dean, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  Are you suggesting that
>     0.0.0.1/24 <http://0.0.0.1/24> is suitable as a template for the
>     gateway?  If so, that is
>     what I had originally proposed in the spec and what others seemed to
>     object to.
>
>     Maybe what others didn't like was that a template was passed in for
>     gateway_ip.  In this case, does passing a template like this as
>     'gateway_ip_template' make them feel better?
>
>
> Template is totally the wrong word.  It is a host address without a
> network.  The prefix is there for the same purpose, to OR it back into a
> network address.

I agree "template" is probably the wrong word to use for this.

> I just want us to stop inventing things that already exist.  You want to
> specify the gateway IP, to get that you need a network address,
> presumably to be allocated somewhere and a host address.  OR them
> together and you have an IP address.

How is 0.0.0.1 a host address? That isn't a valid IP address, AFAIK.

-jay