On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Numan Siddique <nusid...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 11:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > This is a fairly minor thing, but I'm wondering if the syntax of dhcp_offer > { ... }; should be dhcp_offer(...); instead. > > Logical flows currently support: > > next(<table>); > arp { action; ... }; > icmp4 { action; ... }; > > In the arp and icmp4 cases, we're executing a set of logical flow actions > on a temporary replacement packet. For "next", it's a parameter to "next", > not something that could also be executed outside of the context of "next". > > Setting the offerip, router, and netmask seem more like parameters to a > dhcp_offer action since they aren't actions that also make sense outside of > "dhcp_offer". > > Thoughts? > > > I thought about what you mentioned. Since there are many dhcp options and > if we want to > support extra dhcp options, We couldn't find a better way. > > With this approach, if CMS has set the below dhcp options in the > Logical_Port.options > - "dhcp-opt-router=10.0.0.1", dhcp-opt-netmask=255.255.255.0", > "dhcp-opt-mtu=1300", "dhcp-opt-dns=8.8.8.8,7.7.7.7", > > We could express this as "dhcp_offer{ offer_ip = 10.0.0.3; router = > 10.0.0.1; netmask = 255.255.255.0; mtu = 1300; dns = 8.8.8.8, 7.7.7.7 ; } > And the userdata would be stored as " > 00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.0a.00.00.03.03.04.0a.00.00.01.01.04.ff.ff.fe.00.1A.02.05.14.06.08.08.08.08.08.07.07.07.07". > > Please let us know if there is any better way to define this. > It could also be this: dhcp_offer(offer_ip=10.0.0.3, netmask=255.255.255.0, mtu=1300, dns={8.8.8.8, 7.7.7.7}); This is probably the least important detail, though. We can always revisit syntax later. Sorry for the distraction. :-) -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev