We are using KVM (hw-assisted virt) hence we need to specify both boot and storage device type:)
We are also using KVM. I suggest you do same as us and just extend the existing Compute and Storage creating your own sub-types (as nicely supported by OCCI). Then you can add the extra attributes needed. Works nicely for our KVM setup.
Regarding dhcp... it was a mistyping, sorry. What I really meant is adding support for separate DHCP IP addresses. Rationale:
* There could be situations when the gateway and the DHCP server are different, that is use different IP addresses. Meanwhile: * It seems to be a general feature that the cloud manages IP address leasing - it must ensure that the same IP is not used twice, hence in the above situation it must know about the DHCP address.
Not sure I get it still, sorry :) Could you explain which additional attributes you would want to add to the relevant types found in the infrastructure doc? Btw, to support customer's leasing static IP-addresses I choose to create a custom IPAddress Resource for that purpose. Not sure if that help your case but it is an example of how you can solve different implementation specific use cases. regards, Ralf
Cheers, Gyula ________________________________________ Feladó: Ralf Nyren [ralf@nyren.net] Küldve: 2010. november 5. 14:46 Címzett: Csom Gyula; Edmonds, AndrewX; occi-wg@ogf.org Tárgy: Re: [occi-wg] Infrastructure Document
Inline...
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:57:31 +0100, Csom Gyula <csom@interface.hu> wrote:
[1] boot It might be useful to provide a boot param (0/1..*) in order to specify the boot order. Something like hd, cdrom, network, fd. Rationale: a system might provide * prebuilt OS images - boot=hd, * raw images with install CD - boot order = hd, cdrom * computes booting/installed through network (like computes in a Rocks Linux cluster) - boot order = hd, network
If accepted this could/should be an attribute of the compute.
Nice your brought this up. In the occi implementation I am involved in we add a boot-priority attribute in an extension to the Compute type.
Boot priority is relevant when you do "full hw virtualisation" but if you virtualise using e.g. Solaris containers or similar boot-priority is really not applicable.
So, for the generic case I think it should stay out of Compute and be left as an extension. Any other opinions?
[2] dhcp It might be useful if the IP mixin supported DHCP addresses ie. when using dynamic IP allocation, and the gateway and DHCP server IPs are different.
Not sure what you mean here. The IPNetwork mix-in indeed support dynamic address allocation, e.g. dhcp.
[3] network type The handling of public and private virtual networks might be different. For instance while anti IP spoofing against public IPs is a critical feature it is not relevant against private networks. That is it might be useful to tag networks as either public or private. Support could go to the IP mixin.
I think this would suite better as a separate mixin which adds the public/private attribute. But I may be wrong.
[4] device type It might be useful to tell what type of device the storage represents, for instance hd, cdrom.
Indeed, we do this in an extension of the Storage type in our implementation. If you model a block device (from the guest perspective) using the Storage type this is indeed needed. However if you represent an nfs export through the Storage type media type is not really relevant. So again, extension or separate mixin. Well, that's what I think anyway.
regards, Ralf