Agree:) The simplest solution is what Ralf says: "just don't make that address available for allocation". My problem is the "how" when using the CIDR notation. To my understanding CIDR notation cannot specifiy exlcudes. Hence 192.168.0/24 or such address definition will include the DHCP address, and every other reserved addresses within that range as well. But again I could be wrong:) Gyula ________________________________________ Feladó: Edmonds, AndrewX [andrewx.edmonds@intel.com] Küldve: 2010. november 8. 13:04 Címzett: Ralf Nyren; Csom Gyula; occi-wg@ogf.org Tárgy: RE: [occi-wg] Infrastructure Document 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