The network range was put in place to support as part of a provisioning scheme used by some cloud providers. The range was intended to select a subset of a network segment, much like the client auto-configuring DHCP. The provider responds with one arbitrary IP address bounded by the range value. Under this scheme, if you needed a network interface with a different gateway address, you requested a different network Resource (NIC) . -gary On 11/8/2010 5:04 AM, Edmonds, AndrewX wrote:
Address ranges - good catch on this one Csom :-) - yes this should only be 0...1 On other aspects I would agree with what Ralf has said.
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: Ralf Nyren [mailto:ralf@nyren.net] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 12:00 PM To: Csom Gyula; Edmonds, AndrewX; occi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Infrastructure Document
inline..
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 08:23:13 +0100, Csom Gyula<csom@interface.hu> wrote:
Extensions would do the home work:) Meanwhile for the long term I would propose the following approach.
Some programming languages provides a so called standard library besides the core. I think a similar solution could work here as well. That is typical extensions those applicable to many situations but not all, could be covered by OCCI: maybe not in the core but in a standard "library", maybe not in the next release but in a later one. Yes, good point. The plan is to have multiple extensions available for different use cases etc. However, this will have to wait to a future release of OCCI.
Regarding DHCP... an occi.ipnetwork.dhcp could be the additional attribute. Like occi.ipnetwork.gateway it would hold an IP address, namely the address of the DHCP server. This would support only one goal: to tell the cloud that this address is reserved in the range:
available addresses := occi.ipnetwork.address(es) - occi.ipnetwork.gateway - occi.ipnetwork.dhcp
But maybe I missunderstood the role of occi.ipnetwork.address:
- The spec says: "IPv4 or IPv6 Address range, CIDR notation", so I thought it was something like this: 192.168.1.0/24 would define a C class subnet with 256 addresses. If this is the case than there is a need for a method to specify reserved addresses within the range. Gateway is a sample for such a reserved address but others could be there as wll (like DHCP if it is different from the gw).
- The spec also says that multiplicity is 0..* so maybe one can define many addresses, but cannot specify a whole range. That is she should list avalailable addresses one by one. If this is the case then there is no need for the suggested attribute. One could simply exlude the reserved addresses from the range.
So my question is: Could you please clarify the occi.ipnetwork.address semantics? in respect of (a) address ranges vs. individual addresses and (b) reserved addresses? Ah, I see your issue now. Hmm... having multiple address ranges and just one gateway does not make sense. Each CIDR range need its own gateway to be useful. Andy, do you remember the reason behind this?
Regarding reserved addresses I think this is something for the server side. If you need a dhcp server address just don't make that address available for allocation. I may be wrong but why would the client need to know about reserved addresses?
regards, Ralf
------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland Registered Number: E902934
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg