Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-02-02 Thread Collins, Sean
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:18:09AM -0500, Shixiong Shang wrote: In other words, I can retrieve the values by: subnet.ipv6_ra_mode subnet.ipv6_address_mode Is that correct? Would you please confirm? Yes - that is the intent. I just have to fix an issue with the DB column definitions, so

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-02-02 Thread Shixiong Shang
Excellent! Thanks for your confirmation, Sean! On Feb 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Collins, Sean sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 01:18:09AM -0500, Shixiong Shang wrote: In other words, I can retrieve the values by: subnet.ipv6_ra_mode subnet.ipv6_address_mode

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-02-02 Thread Shixiong Shang
I just submitted dnsmasq related code to gerrit: https://review.openstack.org/70649 This submission intended to implement “ipv6-two-attributes” BP and other three blueprints (SLAAC, DHCPv6-Stateful, DHCPv6-Stateless) rooted from it. Please review and let me know what you think. Thanks in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-31 Thread Shixiong Shang
Hi, Sean: Thanks a bunch for the new code. I glimpsed it through once and if I understand it correctly, the value of the two parameters are saved as the attributes of a subnet. In other words, I can retrieve the values by: subnet.ipv6_ra_mode subnet.ipv6_address_mode Is that correct? Would

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-30 Thread Collins, Sean
I just pushed a new patch that adds the two new attributes to Subnets. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52983/ It's a very rough draft - but I wanted to get it out the door so people had sufficient time to take a look, so we can discuss at the next IRC meeting. -- Sean M. Collins

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-27 Thread Collins, Sean
OK - any suggestions for the names of API attributes? The PDF[0] shared does not specify the names of the attributes, so I had two ideas for the names of the two new attributes being added to the Subnet resource: Either prefix them with ipv6 * ipv6_ra_mode * ipv6_address_mode Or don't prefix

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-27 Thread Veiga, Anthony
I vote address them (ipv6_). There's no guarantee of forward compatibility with a new protocol and this way it can't be confused with a (non-existant) selection method for IPv4, either. Also, future updates of other protocols would require a new attribute and break the API less. -Anthony OK -

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-27 Thread Shixiong Shang
+1 for the ones “ipv6_” prefix. On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.com wrote: I vote address them (ipv6_). There's no guarantee of forward compatibility with a new protocol and this way it can't be confused with a (non-existant) selection method for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-24 Thread Shixiong Shang
Any decisions yet? Shixiong On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.com wrote: An openstack deployment with an external DHCP server is definetely a possible scenario; I don't think it can be implemented out-of-the-box with the components provided by

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-24 Thread Xuhan Peng
Shixiong, I'm fine with the current two modes design. — Xu Han Peng (xuhanp) On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote: Any decisions yet? Shixiong On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.com wrote: An openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-23 Thread Salvatore Orlando
An openstack deployment with an external DHCP server is definetely a possible scenario; I don't think it can be implemented out-of-the-box with the components provided by the core openstack services, but it should be doable and a possibly even a requirement for deployments which integrate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-23 Thread Veiga, Anthony
An openstack deployment with an external DHCP server is definetely a possible scenario; I don't think it can be implemented out-of-the-box with the components provided by the core openstack services, but it should be doable and a possibly even a requirement for deployments which integrate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Ian Wells
On 21 January 2014 22:46, Veiga, Anthony anthony_ve...@cable.comcast.comwrote: Hi, Sean and Xuhan: I totally agree. This is not the ultimate solution with the assumption that we had to use “enable_dhcp”. We haven’t decided the name of another parameter, however, we are open to any

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Xuhan Peng
Ian,  I think the last two attributes PDF from Shixiong's last email is trying to solve the problem you are saying, right? — Xu Han Peng (xuhanp) On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Ian Wells ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote: On 21 January 2014 22:46, Veiga, Anthony

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Collins, Sean
I don't know if it's reasonable to expect a deployment of OpenStack that has an *external* DHCP server. It's certainly hard to imagine how you'd get the Neutron API and an external DHCP server to agree on an IP assignment, since OpenStack expects to be the source of truth. -- Sean M. Collins

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Shixiong Shang
Sean, I agree with you. I prefer OpenStack as the single source of truth. What end user chooses may be different. But with this pair of keywords, at least we provide comprehensive coverage on all scenarios. For Icehouse, I suggest we only consider the supports for the scenarios that OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Shixiong Shang
That is correct, Xu Han! On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Xuhan Peng pengxu...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, I think the last two attributes PDF from Shixiong's last email is trying to solve the problem you are saying, right? — Xu Han Peng (xuhanp) On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Ian

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-22 Thread Shixiong Shang
Any possibility we can nail the keywords in the next 12 - 24 hrs? So we can decide the scope in Icehouse release and then, discuss who can do what? Shixiong On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Collins, Sean sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com wrote: I don't know if it's reasonable to expect a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-21 Thread Collins, Sean
I don't see a second new attribute being proposed - I only see one new one and the existing enable_dhcp attribute. Can we get a writeup of what is being proposed? -- Sean M. Collins ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-21 Thread Shixiong Shang
Hi, Anthony: I think we are saying the same thing. Yes, there must be two parameters, and they are independent. What I mean of simplifying referred to the CLI. If user provides RA mode, then the 2nd parameter will have default value if user doesn't specify it. However, user can also indicate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPv6] A pair of mode keywords

2014-01-21 Thread Shixiong Shang
I created a new PDF file to show two parameters (i.e. not referring “enable_dhcp”). Here is the link. I also updated BP too. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rq8xmbruqthef38/IPv6%20Two%20Modes%20v2.0.pdf Shixiong On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Shixiong Shang sparkofwisdom.cl...@gmail.com wrote: