[one-users] Ranged network!

[Lars Kellogg-Stedman]

> To improve this, we can extend the parameters to define the ranged network,
> e.g. with the starting ip address parameter. Or alternatively, define a
> fixed net using single leases and/or continuous ranges of leases. Which one
> is better?

I think that RANGED networks are ultimately easier to manage than a
FIXED network.  I would like, for example, to create several small
"networks" out of a larger block of addresses...for example, taking
10.10.10.0/24 and dividing it up into:

- 10.10.10.10 - 10.10.10.30
- 10.10.10.31 - 10.10.10.100
- etc...

It's certainly possible to do this using FIXED networks and generated
leases, but it's somewhat less convenient and doesn't really lend
itself to management via the web interface.

This would require the ability to specify a base address for each
"network", as well as the the number of addresses to provision.  So
something like this:

  NAME=cloud
  TYPE=RANGED
  BRIDIGE=br619
  NETWORK_BASE=10.10.10.10
  NETWORK_SIZE=30

Ideally, I would like to be able to specify the network using any of
the following:

  - An address mask:
    NETWORK_ADDRESS=10.10.10.0/24

  - An address and mask as octets:
    NETWORK_ADDRESS=10.10.10.0/255.255.255.0

  - A base and size:
    NETWORK_BASE=10.10.10.1
    NETWORK_SIZE=253

    (where the first address allocated is NETWORK_BASE, and the last
address allocated is NETWORK_BASE+NETWORK_SIZE).

It would also be nice to be able to "reserve" addresses on a ranged
network.  For example, we have a /24 dedicated to our OpenNebula
cluster right now, except there are two legacy hosts sitting there
from a previous virtualization experiment.  It would be great if I
could do this:

  NETWORK_ADDRESS=10.10.10.0/24
  RESERVED=[10.10.10.1, 10.10.10.254, 10.10.10.253]

...or something like that.

-- 
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars at seas.harvard.edu>
Senior Technologist
Harvard University SEAS
Academic and Research Computing (ARC)