Support rfc6598 IP addresses in service subnet

[balamanova]

Description

Contribution Checklist:

• The pull request does not introduce any breaking changes
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• Create an issue and link to the pull request.

Attach Screenshots (Optional)

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @balamanova, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request enhances the application's network configuration capabilities by integrating support for RFC 6598 Shared Address Space IP ranges within the service subnet validation logic. This change allows for the proper recognition and handling of these specific IP addresses, ensuring broader compatibility and correct data input in the user interface.

Highlights

• RFC 6598 IP Support: The system now recognizes and validates IP addresses within the RFC 6598 Shared Address Space (100.64.0.0/10) for service subnets.
• Regex Update: The validation pattern for 'Service Subnet' in the UI has been extended to include the new IP range.
• Test Coverage: A new test case has been added to ensure the correct validation of RFC 6598 IP addresses.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds support for RFC 6598 IP addresses (Carrier-Grade NAT) to the 'Service Subnet' static workload type. The changes include updating the validation regex and adding a corresponding test case.

My review identifies a bug in the new regex logic that allows invalid CIDR prefixes, and also points out opportunities to improve the regex's maintainability. Additionally, a variable name in the test file has become misleading due to the new address type and should be updated for clarity.

[gemini-code-assist]

This regular expression is very complex and hard to maintain. More importantly, the new part for RFC 6598 addresses contains a bug.

1. Bug: The CIDR prefix length for the RFC 6598 range (100.64.0.0/10) should be between 10 and 32. The current regex ([1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[0-2]) incorrectly allows prefixes from 1 to 9.
2. Maintainability: The sub-expression for matching an IP octet (([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5])) is convoluted and can be simplified to a more standard and efficient form: (25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9]).

I suggest refactoring the entire regex to fix the bug and improve readability and performance. Also, please consider updating the comment on line 120, which is now outdated.

Suggested change

'^(10(\\.(([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5]))){3}/([8-9]|(1[0-9])|(2[0-9])|(3[0-1])))|(172\\.((1[6-9])|(2[0-9])|(3[0-1]))(\\.(([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5]))){2}/((1[2-9])|(2[0-9])|(3[0-1])))|(192\\.168(\\.(([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5]))){2}/((1[6-9])|(2[0-9])|(3[0-1])))|(127(\\.(([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5]))){3}/([8-9]|(1[0-9])|(2[0-9])|(3[0-1])))|(100\\.(6[4-9]|[7-9][0-9]|1[01][0-9]|12[0-7])(\\.(([0-9]?[0-9])|(1[0-9]?[0-9])|(2[0-4]?[0-9])|(25[0-5]))){2}/([1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[0-2]))$',

'^(10(\\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){3}/([8-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1]))|(172\\.((1[6-9])|2[0-9]|3[0-1])(\\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){2}/(1[2-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1]))|(192\\.168(\\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){2}/(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1]))|(127(\\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){3}/([8-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1]))|(100\\.(6[4-9]|[7-9][0-9]|1[01][0-9]|12[0-7])(\\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){2}/(1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-2]))$'

[gemini-code-assist]

The variable name rfc1918CIDR is now misleading as it contains 100.64.0.0/10 which is defined in RFC 6598 (Shared Address Space for Carrier-Grade NAT), not RFC 1918 (Private Internets). To improve clarity and maintainability, consider renaming this variable to something more inclusive, like validServiceSubnetCIDRs, throughout this test case.