Networking Guide uses RFC1918 IPv4 ranges instead of RFC5737
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
neutron |
Confirmed
|
Low
|
Akihiro Motoki | ||
openstack-manuals |
Won't Fix
|
High
|
Chason Chan |
Bug Description
***UPDATE***
An etherpad for tracking the required changes can be found here:
https:/
************
Hi! I was reading the guide on the "Get me a network" bits, and I realized that the whole manual is using the wrong address ranges.
RFC5737 defines three ranges for use in documentation:
3. Documentation Address Blocks
The blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2),
and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) are provided for use in
documentation.
These are non-routable addresses, even privately, and the RFC is specifically provided to avoid problems like overlap (If everyone uses the 10.x ranges because that's what's in the manuals, we end up with even more overlap than usual).
https:/
It's worth noting that the manual _is_ compliant with RFC3849, which defines the IPv6 documentation range as 2001:db8::/32.
-------
Release: 0.9 on 2017-01-12 12:47
SHA: 03c62feaf3779cc
Source: http://
URL: http://
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
status: | New → Confirmed |
importance: | Undecided → High |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
assignee: | nobody → John Davidge (john-davidge) |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
status: | Confirmed → In Progress |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
description: | updated |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
milestone: | none → ocata |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
assignee: | caoyuan (cao-yuan) → John Davidge (john-davidge) |
Changed in openstack-manuals: | |
assignee: | caoyuan (cao-yuan) → John Davidge (john-davidge) |
tags: |
added: doc removed: networking-guide |
Changed in neutron: | |
assignee: | nobody → Akihiro Motoki (amotoki) |
importance: | Undecided → High |
description: | updated |
Changed in neutron: | |
importance: | High → Low |
Hey Clint, thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of that RFC at all! I'm going to look into adding this to our doc conventions to avoid future non-compliant additions.