Comment 1 for bug 1078013

Gary Kotton (garyk) wrote on 2012-11-12: #4

Hi,
It says "When IP addresses are associated to a port, this also implies the port is associated with a subnet, as the IP address was taken from the allocation pool for a specific subnet. " My understanding is that the IP address must be taken from the allocation pool if it is defined.
Thanks
Gary

dan wendlandt (danwent) wrote on 2012-11-12: #5

Sounds like we have some conflicting text, but the intent as I understood it was that allocation_pools referred to what IPs might be automatically allocated when the creator of a port did not specify any specific fixed_ips. However, any unallocated IP in the subnet could be specified explicitly when creating a port, even if it was not in the allocation_pool. This allowed one to retain a particular subset of the subnet IPs for static allocation.

Salvatore Orlando (salvatore-orlando) wrote on 2012-11-12: #6

The allocation pool, to my understanding, was created for automatic allocation, ie: for those cases where the IP is no explicitly specified. I think there's nothing wrong with out-of-pool explicit allocation.

We might think about allowing the policy engine to restrict this capability to some specific users, but that is probably another story.