On Tuesday 21 Oct 2014 00:57:23 you wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 07:45 PM, Julian Edwards wrote:
> > If you remember, the requirement of a DHCP request on each NIC is so
> > that MAAS can determine on which cluster interface each NIC resides.
> >
> > For this to work, the lease has to be present and *valid* at the point
> > that the lease scanner runs, which is once a minute.
>
> No, it doesn't have to be that way, that's just how we do things today.
Right, that's what I was describing.
> Instead, we could capture the DHCPOFFER on the node and either include
> it in the commissioning script output to be processed in a hook on the
> server side, and we could get the same information there as would be
> available in the DHCP leases file, without ever taking up a lease.
This is perfectly valid too and sounds like a good solution.
On Tuesday 21 Oct 2014 00:57:23 you wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 07:45 PM, Julian Edwards wrote:
> > If you remember, the requirement of a DHCP request on each NIC is so
> > that MAAS can determine on which cluster interface each NIC resides.
> >
> > For this to work, the lease has to be present and *valid* at the point
> > that the lease scanner runs, which is once a minute.
>
> No, it doesn't have to be that way, that's just how we do things today.
Right, that's what I was describing.
> Instead, we could capture the DHCPOFFER on the node and either include
> it in the commissioning script output to be processed in a hook on the
> server side, and we could get the same information there as would be
> available in the DHCP leases file, without ever taking up a lease.
This is perfectly valid too and sounds like a good solution.