291 atomic ip block #306
291 atomic ip block #306
Conversation
# Conflicts: # pkg/configuration/topology/ip_blocks.go code improvements
fixed bugs in the function
| switch { | ||
| case atomBlock != nil && otherAtomBlock != nil: | ||
| return atomBlock.Intersect(otherAtomBlock).IsEmpty() | ||
| case atomBlock != nil || otherAtomBlock != nil: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why false for this case?
can use config details about internal addresses ranges?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If atom is an ipBlockTerm and otherAtom is a tagTerm or a groupTerm then there is no way we can compare them ( groupTerm is used only when we failed to analyze the group's expression).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if an expression is defined over VM properties, it may only capture internal VM addresses.
and in such case if IPBlock is known to be external, can infer they are disjoint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we can infer they are disjoint at the moment of synthesis. We can not infer they are meant to be disjoint.
And since using IPs to refer to internal is defined a bad practice, I don't think we should develop methodology for this case (as "guessing" disjointness)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok, please open a separate issue for discussing/considering this later.
|
use |
I now use |
…are-analyzer into 291_atomic_ip_block
No description provided.