Today the Lemmy.fan family of frontends brings you something completely new:
daring.lemmy.fan! (or, DLF for short)
DLF runs the latest, cutting-edge release of Lemmy. The instance is separate from Lemmy.fan in that accounts, subscriptions, etc are not copied from Lemmy.fan. DLF is federated, however, so comments and communities can be made and posted across the fediverse.
It should go without saying, but daring.lemmy.fan is very much a sandbox and not anything to be trusted with permanent data. Though we prefer to rollback the database if we come across any issues, it may be necessary to wipe things and start completely over.
Hey, that's the joy and beauty of cutting-edge, open-source for you! Enjoy it! Frolic!
A one-time email verification is required to keep the spammers and scammers at bay.
I'll be back here, snickering.
Bold, novel attempt sir to rid yourself of the bonds of marriage. Sorry it failed.
The Illuminati something something...
♫♪♪ Near, far, whereevvvvvvvvvver you are ♫♪♪
You can't spell ASININE without MENSA
It wasn't Uber
GoFundMe started to buy suspect a belt.
Alls we need now is sneks on Brawndo
Hi all. I'm not ready to die on this hill, but I am willing to suffer some serious injuries.
Here's the question: Should an IPAM product hand out static IPs when called upon by API for next available address?
Say I setup a machine on vRA using API calls to an enterprisey-IPAM solution using their documented API to poll, and perhaps subsequently pull, the next available IP address.
The API assigns an IP, but the IP assigned is the next IP available in a static range, not an IP address in an established and advertised DHCP range. Thus, any of a number of reserved static IPs will be dynamically assigned via API. The API is not using the IPAM product's built-in DHCP server to dynamically assign addresses. The IPAM product's DHCP and DNS are authoritative.
Bug, or feature?
As an engineer, my take is that the API calls should always pull from DHCP. Static IPs must be considered to be reserved, even if marked unused in IPAM, and should never be assigned whereas DHCP keeps records of IPs assigned and can be trusted to hand out an IP not being used. The idea is, when a new machine is brought online and gets an IP, that machine can either retain the DHCP-assigned addresses or I can assign it a static IP if necessary. Never, ever should my IPAM product think it is OK to hand out a ~~private~~ static IP address.
I can see how some people flip this and want their DHCP pools to be untouched by IPAM, but that's just backwards in my eyes.