ip_version sounds great.
Currently the opt-names are written into the configuration file of
dnsmasq directly. So I would say yes, they are coming from dnsmasq
definitions.
It will make more sense when ip_version is missing or null, the option
apply to both since we could have only ipv6 or ipv4 address on the port.
However, the validation of opt-value should rule out the ones which are
not suitable for the current address. For example, an IPv6 dns server
should not be specified for IPv4 address port, etc...
Xu Han
On 09/30/2014 08:41 PM, Robert Li (baoli) wrote:
Xu Han,
That looks good to me. To keep it consistent with existing CLI, we
should use ip-version instead of 'version'. It seems to be identical
to prefixing the option_name with v4 or v6, though.
Just to clarify, are the available opt-names coming from dnsmasq
definitions?
With regard to the default, your suggestion "*version is optional (no
version means version=4).*" seems to be different from Mark's:
I'm -1 for both options because neither is properly backwards
compatible. Instead we should add an optional 3rd value to the
dictionary: "version". The version key would be used to make
the option only apply to either version 4 or 6. *If the key is
missing or null, then the option would apply to both*.
Thanks,
Robert
On 9/30/14, 1:46 AM, "Xu Han Peng" <pengxu...@gmail.com
<mailto:pengxu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Robert,
I think the CLI will look something like based on Mark's suggestion:
neutron port-create extra_dhcp_opts
opt_name=<dhcp_option_name>,opt_value=<value>,version=4(or 6)
<network>
This extra_dhcp_opts can be repeated and version is optional (no
version means version=4).
Xu Han
On 09/29/2014 08:51 PM, Robert Li (baoli) wrote:
Hi Xu Han,
My question is how the CLI user interface would look like to
distinguish between v4 and v6 dhcp options?
Thanks,
Robert
On 9/28/14, 10:29 PM, "Xu Han Peng" <pengxu...@gmail.com
<mailto:pengxu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark's suggestion works for me as well. If no one objects, I
am going to start the implementation.
Thanks,
Xu Han
On 09/27/2014 01:05 AM, Mark McClain wrote:
On Sep 26, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Xu Han Peng
<pengxu...@gmail.com <mailto:pengxu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Currently the extra_dhcp_opts has the following API
interface on a port:
{
"port":
{
"extra_dhcp_opts": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name":
"bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123", "opt_name":
"tftp-server"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.45", "opt_name":
"server-ip-address"}
],
....
}
}
During the development of DHCPv6 function for IPv6 subnets,
we found this format doesn't work anymore because an port
can have both IPv4 and IPv6 address. So we need to find a
new way to specify extra_dhcp_opts for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6,
respectively. (
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1356383)
Here are some thoughts about the new format:
Option1: Change the opt_name in extra_dhcp_opts to add a
prefix (v4 or v6) so we can distinguish opts for v4 or v6
by parsing the opt_name. For backward compatibility, no
prefix means IPv4 dhcp opt.
"extra_dhcp_opts": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name":
"bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123", "opt_name":
"*v4:*tftp-server"},
{"opt_value": "[2001:0200:feed:7ac0::1]",
"opt_name": "*v6:*dns-server"}
]
Option2: break extra_dhcp_opts into IPv4 opts and IPv6
opts. For backward compatibility, both old format and new
format are acceptable, but old format means IPv4 dhcp opts.
"extra_dhcp_opts": {
"ipv4": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name":
"bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123",
"opt_name": "tftp-server"},
],
"ipv6": [
{"opt_value":
"[2001:0200:feed:7ac0::1]", "opt_name": "dns-server"}
]
}
The pro of Option1 is there is no need to change API
structure but only need to add validation and parsing to
opt_name. The con of Option1 is that user need to input
prefix for every opt_name which can be error prone. The pro
of Option2 is that it's clearer than Option1. The con is
that we need to check two formats for backward compatibility.
We discussed this in IPv6 sub-team meeting and we think
Option2 is preferred. Can I also get community's feedback
on which one is preferred or any other comments?
I'm -1 for both options because neither is properly
backwards compatible. Instead we should add an optional 3rd
value to the dictionary: "version". The version key would
be used to make the option only apply to either version 4 or
6. If the key is missing or null, then the option would
apply to both.
mark
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
