maas-devel team mailing list archive

[Julian Edwards <julian.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 19 July 2012 18:41:23 Robert Collins wrote:
> When we say 'we have to support classless networks', what specifically
> are we talking about? What archetype won't have a full subnet in one
> of the three RFC1918 ranges to give to MAAS [at the point they are
> asking MAAS to take over DNS and DHCP] ?
> 
> We can avoid a lot of code if we don't need to do this, so I think its
> important to figure out why we think we need to.

It's a question I've asked and I keep getting different answers.  Here's one 
from earlier :)

<bigjools> lifeless: anyway the original question is not answered - do we care 
about the reverse zone being overly authoritative when there's a non-octet 
netmask boundary?
<lifeless> yes, because otherwise it won't work for adjacent nodegroups
<lifeless> you need to do rfc2317 if you have that sort of split.

So, do we need to worry about this or not?!

If we can avoid worrying about it then I'd be quite happy to move on at this 
point.  However, if it's on a network that's already split on non-octet 
boundaries I need to know what kind of problems are caused by the reverse zone 
being overly authoritative if we don't do rfc2317.

> > The latency is more to do with the fact that we have to react to the
> > leases
> > file changing.
> 
> With what I proposed, why do we have to?

We don't if MAAS does all the allocation - I was just pointing out that we do 
if we use the lease file parsing method.

> > I suspect that in the future if all of this becomes really problematic
> > then
> > we'll just write our own DHCP server and run it as part of MAAS.  I think
> > taking the simplistic approach right now and iterating improvements is the
> > right way to go.
> 
> Of course. I'm merely talking about what we should aim for.
> 
> -Rob

Tip top, as they say in Norwich.

J