Fixes#13505
This fixes#13505 by treating reserved_ports like we treat a lot of jobspec settings: merging settings from more global stanzas (client.reserved.reserved_ports) "down" into more specific stanzas (client.host_networks[].reserved_ports).
As discussed in #13505 there are other options, and since it's totally broken right now we have some flexibility:
Treat overlapping reserved_ports on addresses as invalid and refuse to start agents. However, I'm not sure there's a cohesive model we want to publish right now since so much 0.9-0.12 compat code still exists! We would have to explain to folks that if their -network-interface and host_network addresses overlapped, they could only specify reserved_ports in one place or the other?! It gets ugly.
Use the global client.reserved.reserved_ports value as the default and treat host_network[].reserverd_ports as overrides. My first suggestion in the issue, but @groggemans made me realize the addresses on the agent's interface (as configured by -network-interface) may overlap with host_networks, so you'd need to remove the global reserved_ports from addresses shared with a shared network?! This seemed really confusing and subtle for users to me.
So I think "merging down" creates the most expressive yet understandable approach. I've played around with it a bit, and it doesn't seem too surprising. The only frustrating part is how difficult it is to observe the available addresses and ports on a node! However that's a job for another PR.
This PR enhances the distinct_property constraint such that a limit can
be specified in the RTarget/value parameter. This allows constraints
such as:
```
constraint {
distinct_property = "${meta.rack}"
value = "2"
}
```
This restricts any given rack from running more than 2 allocations from
the task group.
Fixes https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues/1146
