[Feature]: IP Address management

[0xNF]

What feature would you like?

I'd like to manage assigned IPs, and possibly blocks of potential assignments of IPs, separately from directly attaching them to a specific system.

IPs are kind of supported presently, but they exist only insofar as they are part of a "System" resource. I'd like to be able to:

• Input IPs that I know exist, or will exist on my network.
• Have a place to manage, with a free-form input or otherwise, netblock assignments:
  • i.e., with cidr notations, mark certain blocks as being for "Core", or "Serivces", or "Isolation", etc
    • Even better would be to have an n-level deep tree structure for nested data: "Core 10.96.0.z/14 -> Protected /24", "Client 10.96.4 .z-> /24 Apps", etc)
    • This would be essentially a way to denote ranges as being used for services like DHCP being given ips 0.48-0.191, for instance.
• Support for ipv6 assignments as well
  • ULA support would be nice, too.
• Virtual IP (VIP) support -- systems may have their own concrete IP, but also share a virtual IP as well

What problem does it solve?

It would replace a few pages in my network-architecture markdown notebook about IP usage, assignment, and similar data

Where would this apply?

CLI (rpk commands)

Screenshots or mockups (optional)

Both WebUI and CLI

[GiggleSquid]

I think separating IPv4 and IPv6 addresses is a necessity whether IP addresses become their own resource or not.
In a dual stack network every machine will usually have at least 3 IPs (IPv4, IPv6 Link Local, IPv6 GUA and/or IPv6 ULA).

Being able to assign multiple secondary IPs would be useful as well and should be separate from virtual IPs which would be shared across 2 or more systems.
Of course 'primary' and 'secondary' IPs may not necessarily need a distinction and the IP fields could just be an unordered list (and so could VIPs)

[GiggleSquid]

#260 has the same request for multiple IPs, but I believe this issue is more comprehensive.

[GiggleSquid]

Another thought on assigning IPs from a UX standpoint is to add a new system option for 'Interfaces' which can be bound to one or more server ports (in the case of bonds) and the Interface can hold the IPs.

This way we detach the IP from being bound to the system itself, and instead the IP is bound to the interface of a system.

IP -> Interface -> Server Port(s)

For example, in the case of my load balancers and reverse proxies

LB-0:

• enp6s18.100:
  • 10.100.0.XX/32
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:100::XXXX/128
• enp6s18.101:
  • 10.101.0.YY/24
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:101::YYYY/64

LB-1:

• enp6s18.100:
  • 10.100.0.XX/32
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:100::XXXX/128
• enp6s18.101:
  • 10.101.0.YY/24
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:101::YYYY/64

caddy-0:

• dummy0:
  • 10.100.0.XX/32
  • 10.100.0.YY/32
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:100::XXXX/128
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:100::XXXX/128
• end0:
  • 10.101.0.ZZ/24
  • 2a0b:XXXX:XXXX:101::ZZZZ/64

caddy-1:

• etc...