On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:52 AM, John Belamaric <jbelama...@infoblox.com> wrote: > > On 3/21/15, 9:10 AM, "Salvatore Orlando" <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote: > > If we feel a need for specifying the relative position of gateway address > and allocation pools when creating a subnet from a pool which will pick a > CIDR from its prefixes, then the integer value solution is probably > marginally better than the "fake IP" one (eg.: 0.0.0.1 to say the gateway is > the first IP). Technically they're equivalent - and one could claim that the > address-like notation is nothing bug and octet based representation of a > number. > > I agree here. An integer is probably clearer.
I don't agree. I don't see what problem this solves but I said that in another message. > I wonder why a user would ask for a random CIDR with a given prefix, and > then mandate that gateway IP and allocation pools are in precise locations > within this randomly chosen CIDR. I guess there are good reasons I cannot > figure out by myself. Salvatore makes a good point. Maybe we'll never need this. We removed the use case from Kilo because it needed further discussion. At this point, let's look for people to speak up with a need for this use case. If no one does, then we just leave it on the shelf. That has been my thinking since we dropped it but I figured the thread should continue to play itself out because it doesn't hurt to discuss it a little more here. > Early in the spec review cycle we talked about some generalizations of these > concepts. I would consider the location of the gateway IP to be a > reservation; we discussed having subnet templates that (in my mind) are > essentially a collection of IP reservations. This would allow a user to > specify the specific locations of various services in a pre-defined manner; > routing is just one of those services that is prominent as a specific case > for backwards compatibility. I figure some users may like to have a consistent pattern for how to reserve parts of a subnet regardless of the network address. So, I agree with John here. It is really orthogonal to the specific network address used. I don't quite agree with Salvatore that not caring what the network address is implies that one does not care how some routinely reserved special IPs get laid out within a subnet. However, I do tend to agree that the use case may not be all that important. > In my opinion all that counts here is that the semantics of a resource > attribute should be the same in the request and the response. For instance, > one should not have gateway_ip as a relative "counter-like" IP in the > request body and then as an actual IP address in the response object. In my opinion, we have solved this by using some other -- write-only -- attribute for the template, index, or whatever you want to call it. Thanks Jay for this suggestion. 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
