<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hello, wanted to measure the relative interest in two related efforts I could work on. In general, I'm considering bringing over much of the capability of xCAT's deployment facility over to Ironic, but wanted to highlight a couple to start with.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">-An openstack tailored proxydhcp server. This would mean the boot control aspect would be cleanly split from network identity control. This would allow the bootstrap program to be more adaptive to UEFI and BIOS style boot. Given the limitations of python, I'd probably implement this as a moderately standalone C program (e.g. the ability to get at IP_PKTINFO afaict isn't cleanly possible until python 3.3). I can only be confident with x86, ARM I think would work with some different logic, POWER would not work.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">-If a system does a PXE request, then send down a second stage bootloader. Then that bootloader would download third stage bootloader (pxelinux.0/elilo/grub2/efibootmgfw.efi/pxeboot.n12/esxboot.c32/esxboot.efi) and would provide/download kernel/initrd/wim/multboot modules over https or http. This would be iPXE based (perhaps the xNBA branch that I established for xCAT). A patched esxboot would also be relevant. On EFI Linux, elilo could work with patch (as it does for xCAT), but I might see about grub2 depending on whether it will do something with Simple filesystem or not. The impetus for not elilo would be figuring out the most straightforward path to target-side initrd concatenation. I presume there is a desire to ultimately not have many copies of the same initrd data, but I plan to also take advantage of initrd injection for other features. I can do server side injection into initrds, but it would mean unique initrds per target.</font><br>
<br>
</body></html>