Hi, I have started to get into coding [1] for the Neutron routed networks specification [2].
This spec proposes a new association between network segments and subnets. This affects how IPAM needs to work because until we know where the port is going to land, we cannot allocate an IP address for it. Also, IPAM will need to somehow be aware of segments. We have proposed a host / segment mapping which could be transformed to a host / subnet mapping for IPAM purposes. I wanted to get the opinion of folks like Salvatore, John Belamaric, and you (if you interested) on this. How will this affect the interface to pluggable IPAM and how can pluggable implementations can accommodate this change. Obviously, we wouldn't require implementations to support it but routed networks wouldn't be very useful without it. So, those implementations would not be compatible when routed networks are deployed. Another related topic was brought up in the recent Neutron mid-cycle. We talked about adding a service type attribute to to subnets. The reason for this change is to allow operators to create special subnets on a network to be used only by certain kinds of ports. For example, DVR fip namespace gateway ports burn a public IP for no good reason. This new feature would allow operators to create a special subnet in the network with private addressing only to be used by these ports. Another example would give operators the ability to use private subnets for router external gateway ports if shared SNAT is not needed or doesn't need to use public IPs. These are two ways in which subnets are taking on extra characteristics which distinguish them from other subnets on the same network. That is why I lumped them together in to one thread. Carl __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev