Open Stack

Correct, that’s the problem, what Kevin said should be the ideal case, but distros have
proven to fail satisfying this kind of requirements earlier.

So at least a warning to the user may be good to have IMHO.  

Miguel Ángel Ajo


On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:36, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:

> The problem is probably due to the fact that some operators may run neutron from git and manage their dependencies in some other way; or distributions may suck sometimes, so packagers may miss the release note and fail to upgrade dnsmasq; or distributions may have their specific concerns on upgrading dnsmasq version, and would just backport the needed fix to their 'claimed to 2.66' dnsmasq (common story in Red Hat world).
>  
> On 01/08/2015 05:25 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the distro, wouldn't it be transparent to the operators?  
> >  
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com (mailto:mestery at mestery.com)> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com (mailto:ihrachys at redhat.com)> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >  
> > > > I've found out that dnsmasq < 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6 clients when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, and so clients get 'no addresses available' response). I've requested version bump to 2.67 in: https://review.openstack.org/145482
> > > >  
> > > Good catch, thanks for finding this Ihar!
> > >   
> > > > Now, since we've already released Juno with IPv6 DHCP stateful support, and DHCP agent still has minimal version set to 2.63 there, we have a dilemma on how to manage it from stable perspective.
> > > >  
> > > > Obviously, we should communicate the revealed version dependency to deployers via next release notes.
> > > >  
> > > > Should we also backport the minimal version bump to Juno? This will result in DHCP agent failing to start in case packagers don't bump dnsmasq version with the next Juno release. If we don't bump the version, we may leave deployers uninformed about the fact that their IPv6 stateful instances won't get any IPv6 address assigned.
> > > >  
> > > > An alternative is to add a special check just for Juno that would WARN administrators instead of failing to start DHCP agent.
> > > >  
> > > > Comments?
> > > >  
> > > Personally, I think the WARN may be the best route to go. Backporting a change which bumps the required dnsmasq version seems like it may be harder for operators to handle.
> > >  
> > > Kyle
> > >   
> > > > /Ihar
> > > >  
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org)
> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >  
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org)
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Kevin Benton  
> >  
> > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org) http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev  
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org)
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>  
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150108/34095a07/attachment.html>