On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote: > - I agree with Carl that the IPAM driver should not have explicit code paths > for autoaddress subnets, such as DHCPv6 stateless ones. In that case, the > consumer of the driver will generate the address and then to the IPAM driver > that would just be allocation of a specific address. However, I have the > impression the driver still needs to be aware of whether the subnet has an > automatic address mode or not - since in this case 'any' address allocation > won't be possible. There already comments about this in the review [1]
I had another thought on this. You say that "any address allocation won't be possible". I wonder if this is really true. The EUI-64 space is only one part in 64k of total /64 space. IPAM could allocate from the rest. There could be use cases for mixed modes in the future. I think best practice for any IPAM should be to steer clear of allocating address which could be EUI-64 addresses. Even if it ignores it completely, what are the chances that IPAM will allocate from that sub-space *and* allocate an address that would conflict? I'd say pretty low. If it did happened, IPAM would reject the address computed and the port create would fail I think. You'd try again and it would likely succeed. I may be over-simplifying. Carl __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
