Bug 1970486

Summary:	ipv6 - subnet search query - he IP address and subnet field are empty
Product:	Red Hat Satellite	Reporter:	Markus Schibli <mschibli>
Component:	Discovery Image	Assignee:	Lukas Zapletal <lzap>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Roman Plevka <rplevka>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.9.0	CC:	fratto, lzap, rabajaj
Target Milestone:	Unspecified	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	Unused
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-02-01 19:03:16 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Markus Schibli 2021-06-10 14:45:33 UTC

Description of problem:
We used to have "subnet = 10.185.63.48" as a search rule on IPv4 which worked perfectly. I tried to adopt this for IPv6: "subnet =2a00:4bc0:1010:1102::/64". This did not work.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
satellite-6.9.2-1

How reproducible:
We used to have "subnet = 10.185.63.48" as a search rule on IPv4 which worked perfectly. I tried to adopt this for IPv6: "subnet =2a00:4bc0:1010:1102::/64". This did not work. Workaround is "facts.nmprimary_ip6_route ~ "2a00:4bc0:1010:1102::/64", which is not the most beautiful way to go.

Additional info:

Comment 2 Lukas Zapletal 2021-08-12 08:21:13 UTC

Just to align along, is this on hosts page or discovered hosts page?

Comment 3 Markus Schibli 2021-08-25 06:03:32 UTC

(In reply to Lukas Zapletal from comment #2)
> Just to align along, is this on hosts page or discovered hosts page?

Regarding your question, it's on discovered hosts page. thx.

Comment 4 Brad Buckingham 2023-01-04 22:48:23 UTC

Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team.  Thank you.

Comment 5 Markus Schibli 2023-01-05 10:15:44 UTC

(In reply to Brad Buckingham from comment #4)
> Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded
> that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near
> term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of
> a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you
> have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team. 
> Thank you.

Hi, as customer has a workaround which works for him, he agreed to close this bz. Thanks you.

Comment 6 Marek Hulan 2023-01-05 14:55:08 UTC

Since there was someone else interested in the similar issue, could you please share what the workaround is?

Comment 8 Brad Buckingham 2023-02-01 19:03:16 UTC

Thank you for your interest in Red Hat Satellite. We have evaluated this request, and while we recognize that it is a valid request, we do not expect this to be implemented in the product in the foreseeable future. This is due to other priorities for the product, and not a reflection on the request itself. We are therefore closing this out as WONTFIX. If you have any concerns about this feel free to contact your Red Hat Account Team. Thank you.