Robert,
I think the CLI will look something like based on Mark's suggestion:
neutron port-create extra_dhcp_opts
opt_name=<dhcp_option_name>,opt_value=<value>,version=4(or 6) <network>
This extra_dhcp_opts can be repeated and version is optional (no version
means version=4).
Xu Han
On 09/29/2014 08:51 PM, Robert Li (baoli) wrote:
Hi Xu Han,
My question is how the CLI user interface would look like to
distinguish between v4 and v6 dhcp options?
Thanks,
Robert
On 9/28/14, 10:29 PM, "Xu Han Peng" <pengxu...@gmail.com
<mailto:pengxu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark's suggestion works for me as well. If no one objects, I am
going to start the implementation.
Thanks,
Xu Han
On 09/27/2014 01:05 AM, Mark McClain wrote:
On Sep 26, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Xu Han Peng <pengxu...@gmail.com
<mailto:pengxu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Currently the extra_dhcp_opts has the following API interface on
a port:
{
"port":
{
"extra_dhcp_opts": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name": "bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123", "opt_name":
"tftp-server"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.45", "opt_name":
"server-ip-address"}
],
....
}
}
During the development of DHCPv6 function for IPv6 subnets, we
found this format doesn't work anymore because an port can have
both IPv4 and IPv6 address. So we need to find a new way to
specify extra_dhcp_opts for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, respectively. (
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1356383
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1356383>)
Here are some thoughts about the new format:
Option1: Change the opt_name in extra_dhcp_opts to add a prefix
(v4 or v6) so we can distinguish opts for v4 or v6 by parsing
the opt_name. For backward compatibility, no prefix means IPv4
dhcp opt.
"extra_dhcp_opts": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name": "bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123", "opt_name":
"*v4:*tftp-server"},
{"opt_value": "[2001:0200:feed:7ac0::1]",
"opt_name": "*v6:*dns-server"}
]
Option2: break extra_dhcp_opts into IPv4 opts and IPv6 opts. For
backward compatibility, both old format and new format are
acceptable, but old format means IPv4 dhcp opts.
"extra_dhcp_opts": {
"ipv4": [
{"opt_value": "testfile.1","opt_name":
"bootfile-name"},
{"opt_value": "123.123.123.123", "opt_name":
"tftp-server"},
],
"ipv6": [
{"opt_value": "[2001:0200:feed:7ac0::1]",
"opt_name": "dns-server"}
]
}
The pro of Option1 is there is no need to change API structure
but only need to add validation and parsing to opt_name. The con
of Option1 is that user need to input prefix for every opt_name
which can be error prone. The pro of Option2 is that it's
clearer than Option1. The con is that we need to check two
formats for backward compatibility.
We discussed this in IPv6 sub-team meeting and we think Option2
is preferred. Can I also get community's feedback on which one
is preferred or any other comments?
I'm -1 for both options because neither is properly backwards
compatible. Instead we should add an optional 3rd value to the
dictionary: "version". The version key would be used to make the
option only apply to either version 4 or 6. If the key is
missing or null, then the option would apply to both.
mark
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
