On 03/16/2016 11:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> This is a fairly minor thing, but I'm wondering if the syntax of dhcp_offer
> { ... }; should be dhcp_offer(...); instead.
>
> Logical flows currently support:
>
> next(<table>);
> arp { action; ... };
> icmp4 { action; ... };
>
> In the arp and icmp4 cases, we're executing a set of logical flow actions
> on a temporary replacement packet. For "next", it's a parameter to "next",
> not something that could also be executed outside of the context of "next".
>
> Setting the offerip, router, and netmask seem more like parameters to a
> dhcp_offer action since they aren't actions that also make sense outside of
> "dhcp_offer".
>
> Thoughts?
I thought about what you mentioned. Since there are many dhcp options and if we
want to
support extra dhcp options, We couldn't find a better way.
With this approach, if CMS has set the below dhcp options in the
Logical_Port.options
- "dhcp-opt-router=10.0.0.1", dhcp-opt-netmask=255.255.255.0",
"dhcp-opt-mtu=1300", "dhcp-opt-dns=8.8.8.8,7.7.7.7",
We could express this as "dhcp_offer{ offer_ip = 10.0.0.3; router = 10.0.0.1;
netmask = 255.255.255.0; mtu = 1300; dns = 8.8.8.8, 7.7.7.7 ; }
And the userdata would be stored as
"00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.0a.00.00.03.03.04.0a.00.00.01.01.04.ff.ff.fe.00.1A.02.05.14.06.08.08.08.08.08.07.07.07.07".
Please let us know if there is any better way to define this.
Thanks
Numan
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
