[occi-wg] Infrastructure Document

[Csom Gyula]

Thanks for your response!

We are using KVM (hw-assisted virt) hence we need to specify both boot and storage device type:)

Regarding dhcp... it was a mistyping, sorry. What I really meant is adding support for separate DHCP IP 
addresses. Rationale:

* There could be situations when the gateway and the DHCP server are different, that is use different
   IP addresses. Meanwhile:
* It seems to be a general feature that the cloud manages IP address leasing - it must ensure that
   the same IP is not used twice, hence in the above situation it must know about the DHCP address.

Cheers,
Gyula
________________________________________
Feladó: Ralf Nyren [ralf at nyren.net]
Küldve: 2010. november 5. 14:46
Címzett: Csom Gyula; Edmonds, AndrewX; occi-wg at ogf.org
Tárgy: Re: [occi-wg] Infrastructure Document

Inline...

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:57:31 +0100, Csom Gyula <csom at interface.hu> wrote:

> [1] boot
> It might be useful to provide a boot param (0/1..*) in order to specify
> the boot order. Something like
> hd, cdrom, network, fd. Rationale: a system might provide
> * prebuilt OS images - boot=hd,
> * raw images with install CD - boot order = hd, cdrom
> * computes booting/installed through network (like computes in a Rocks
> Linux cluster) - boot order = hd, network
>
> If accepted this could/should be an attribute of the compute.

Nice your brought this up. In the occi implementation I am involved in we
add a boot-priority attribute in an extension to the Compute type.

Boot priority is relevant when you do "full hw virtualisation" but if you
virtualise using e.g. Solaris containers or similar boot-priority is
really not applicable.

So, for the generic case I think it should stay out of Compute and be left
as an extension. Any other opinions?

> [2] dhcp
> It might be useful if the IP mixin supported DHCP addresses ie. when
> using dynamic IP allocation, and the gateway
> and DHCP server IPs are different.

Not sure what you mean here. The IPNetwork mix-in indeed support dynamic
address allocation, e.g. dhcp.

> [3] network type
> The handling of public and private virtual networks might be different.
> For instance while anti IP spoofing against public
> IPs is a critical feature it is not relevant against private networks.
> That is it might be useful to tag networks as either
> public or private. Support could go to the IP mixin.

I think this would suite better as a separate mixin which adds the
public/private attribute. But I may be wrong.

> [4] device type
> It might be useful to tell what type of device the storage represents,
> for instance hd, cdrom.

Indeed, we do this in an extension of the Storage type in our
implementation. If you model a block device (from the guest perspective)
using the Storage type this is indeed needed. However if you represent an
nfs export through the Storage type media type is not really relevant. So
again, extension or separate mixin. Well, that's what I think anyway.

regards, Ralf