[occi-wg] Infrastructure Document

[Ralf Nyren]

inline..

On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 08:23:13 +0100, Csom Gyula <csom at interface.hu> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, good point. The plan is to have multiple extensions available for  
different use cases etc. However, this will have to wait to a future  
release of OCCI.

> 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?

Ah, I see your issue now. Hmm... having multiple address ranges and just  
one gateway does not make sense. Each CIDR range need its own gateway to  
be useful. Andy, do you remember the reason behind this?

Regarding reserved addresses I think this is something for the server  
side. If you need a dhcp server address just don't make that address  
available for allocation. I may be wrong but why would the client need to  
know about reserved addresses?

regards, Ralf