Add networking report

[adamruzicka]

Rather than trying to answer the loosely defined "are we running ipv4-only, ipv6-only or dualstack?" question directly, the aim here is to collect enough data to be able to answer the question later, depending on how exactly we define it.

# foreman-maintain report generate | grep -e ipv -e dualstack
subnet_ipv4_count: 0
subnet_ipv6_count: 0
hosts_with_ipv4only_interface_count: 5
hosts_with_ipv6only_interface_count: 0
hosts_with_dualstack_interface_count: 0
foreman_interfaces_ipv4only_count: 1
foreman_interfaces_ipv6only_count: 0
foreman_interfaces_dualstack_count: 0
setting_remote_execution_connect_by_ip_prefer_ipv6: false
setting_discovery_prefer_ipv6: true

I was also thinking about further scoping the hosts_with_{ipv4-only,ipv6-only,dualstack}_interace_count by the flag of the interface (primary, provision and so on), but that would probably be too granular.

I also though about including the ipv4 vs ipv6 preference settings (remote_execution_connect_by_ip_prefer_ipv6, discovery_prefer_ipv6), but we can already infer that from the list of modified settings.

[adamruzicka]

@ShimShtein @ares any thoughts on this?

[ShimShtein]

but we can already infer that from the list of modified settings

It's quite painful to look back for changed settings, so I think it would be OK to duplicate the current setting value here.

hosts_with_ipv6-only_interface_count

Having mixed - and _ feels weird, even though I understand where it comes from.

by the flag of the interface (primary, provision and so on)

Agreed, at least theoretically it should add cardinality, which is not desired.

[adamruzicka]

@ShimShtein ready for another round

[ShimShtein]

This will generate Subnet::Ipvipv6

[ShimShtein]

If I am not mistaken, for host with two nics, you will get 2 records in the joined table.

[adamruzicka]

Yeah, you're right, fixed