[occi-wg] Infrastructure Document

[Csom Gyula]

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.

---

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?

Cheers,
Gyula

________________________________________
Feladó: Ralf Nyren [ralf at nyren.net]
Küldve: 2010. november 5. 17:14
Címzett: Csom Gyula; Edmonds, AndrewX; occi-wg at ogf.org
Tárgy: Re: [occi-wg] Infrastructure Document

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

We are also using KVM. I suggest you do same as us and just extend the
existing Compute and Storage creating your own sub-types (as nicely
supported by OCCI). Then you can add the extra attributes needed. Works
nicely for our KVM setup.

> 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.

Not sure I get it still, sorry :)  Could you explain which additional
attributes you would want to add to the relevant types found in the
infrastructure doc?

Btw, to support customer's leasing static IP-addresses I choose to create
a custom IPAddress Resource for that purpose. Not sure if that help your
case but it is an example of how you can solve different implementation
specific use cases.

regards, Ralf


> 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