Comment 6 for bug 1855854

Hi,

Thank you for sharing the drivers meeting discussion.

Let's put this on hold.
I hope to be able to work out a solution for the Ironic provisioning issues in dnsmasq.

As haleyb mentioned I am currently working on a solution in dnsmasq, and the maintainer is warming up to the idea. It's another approach, not the one first mentioned in this bug, see: http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2020q1/013671.html. I am discussing the approach with the dnsmasq maintainer, he is open to the idea but wants it implemented in a slightly different way. (NOTE, neutron will need an update to how it writes dhcp configuration for dnsmasq when a port have multiple IP's. Neutron does it wrong today, but we can't fix it until we have an implementation in dnsmasq and the final configuration format defined.)

As I started working on a spec for a dynamic address pool, I realized that it's very problematic with dhcp HA. We'd end up with conflicts because the lease database is not synced between the dhcp servers. My conclusion is that we would have to use a different dhcp server, one that could use a central lease database shared between all the servers.

--
Harald