But wouldn't that cause issues in the general case? If all of the IB ports
will then carry the same client_id, then you can only use dhcp to assign an
ipaddr to one of them (in the general case).
In my application, I can guarantee that only one port on a host will be issuing
dhcp discover requests, although the port which does the dhcp discovery for the
host may change from boot to boot.
Mark
From: Michael Brown <mc...@ipxe.org>
To: Maule Mark <mark_ma...@yahoo.com>; "ipxe-devel@lists.ipxe.org"
<ipxe-devel@lists.ipxe.org>; Wissam Shoukair <wiss...@mellanox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ipxe-devel] custom dhcp client_id option
On 12/04/16 15:04, Maule Mark wrote:
> I noticed that. However, dnsmasq only considers client_id (if present)
> followed by hwaddr when looking up configs in its hostsfile. I've tried
> hacking around that in dnsmasq (by trying to match client_uuid if
> present and no client_id match), but the code is pretty tangled and it's
> not clear to me that this would be spec compliant anyway.
It looks as though our use of the link-layer address as the DHCP client
identifier (option 61) may be obsolete anyway, since IPoIB devices now
use 6-byte eIPoIB LEMACs in ll_addr (rather than the 20-byte IPoIB MAC).
Wissam: any objections to switching all link layers (including eIPoIB)
to place the client UUID in option 61?
Michael
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get it now
From: Michael Brown <mc...@ipxe.org>
To: Maule Mark <mark_ma...@yahoo.com>; "ipxe-devel@lists.ipxe.org"
<ipxe-devel@lists.ipxe.org>; Wissam Shoukair <wiss...@mellanox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ipxe-devel] custom dhcp client_id option
On 12/04/16 15:04, Maule Mark wrote:
> I noticed that. However, dnsmasq only considers client_id (if present)
> followed by hwaddr when looking up configs in its hostsfile. I've tried
> hacking around that in dnsmasq (by trying to match client_uuid if
> present and no client_id match), but the code is pretty tangled and it's
> not clear to me that this would be spec compliant anyway.
It looks as though our use of the link-layer address as the DHCP client
identifier (option 61) may be obsolete anyway, since IPoIB devices now
use 6-byte eIPoIB LEMACs in ll_addr (rather than the 20-byte IPoIB MAC).
Wissam: any objections to switching all link layers (including eIPoIB)
to place the client UUID in option 61?
Michael
_______________________________________________
ipxe-devel mailing list
ipxe-devel@lists.ipxe.org
https://lists.ipxe.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ipxe-devel
