From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60047BCE6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41C8F1B0EF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7ECD146C8E;
 Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:08 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <2f19cadf-57b0-88ac-dc8b-035a2ed94395@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.0
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>
References: <20230908134304.2009415-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <20230908134304.2009415-5-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <f378b30f63c1e4427e512b3e7db4c0f8f92e8e60.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f378b30f63c1e4427e512b3e7db4c0f8f92e8e60.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.215 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC pve-network 4/6] sdn: dhcp: subnet: add DHCP
 options to subnet configuration
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:37:39 -0000


On 9/11/23 06:03, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote:
> I think that some common options could also be declared at subnet level
> or even at zone level.
> 
> (I'm think about static routes for example, they could be defined at
> subnet level,   maybe dnsserver,ntpserver could be defined at zone
> level, ....)
> 
> to avoid to redefined them each time for each range.
> 
> 
> So maybe be able to defined them at uppper level, and be able to
> override them at range level.
> 

Yes, I was already looking at all the options DHCP provides - apparently 
there are a lot. It would make sense to implement at least the most 
common ones this way (as I did with dnsserver for now). It might also 
make sense to provide the option to take those values from the host 
automatically.