Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 20, 2024. It is now read-only.

[ipam] refuse manual allocation in ipam range #687

Closed
bboreham opened this issue May 18, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

[ipam] refuse manual allocation in ipam range #687

bboreham opened this issue May 18, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees
@bboreham
Labels
chore [component/ipam]
Milestone
1.1.0

Comments

@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor

If a user inadvertently assigns an IP in the range owned by IPAM (as described in #681), weave could display an informative message.
@bboreham bboreham mentioned this issue May 18, 2015
Closed
@rade rade added the chore label May 18, 2015
@rade rade changed the title [ipam] tell user they shouldn't allocate in ipam range [ipam] refuse manual allocation in ipam range May 18, 2015
@rade rade modified the milestone: next May 26, 2015
@rade rade modified the milestone: next Jun 3, 2015
@rade rade modified the milestone: 1.1.0 Jul 8, 2015
@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Related: #598

@rade rade modified the milestones: 1.1.0, current Jul 15, 2015
@bboreham bboreham self-assigned this Jul 20, 2015
@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Having implemented 'claim' in #1159, it would be very simple to use the same mechanism to check each manually-allocated IP address, and thus to implement #598 at the same time.
The real difference is in error handling: 'claim' silently allows an address inside the IPAM range if it can't answer for sure yet, whereas for this issue we want it to warn the user.

@bboreham bboreham mentioned this issue Jul 20, 2015
Merged
@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor Author

The title of this issue asks it to refuse, but the text asks for a warning. What do we think is best?

@rade rade modified the milestones: current, 1.1.0 Jul 29, 2015
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees

@bboreham bboreham

Labels
chore [component/ipam]
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.1.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@rade @awh @bboreham