Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add support for TFTP-boot provisioning in IPv6 networks #3532

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add support for TFTP-boot provisioning in IPv6 networks #3532

wants to merge 3 commits into from
+40 −14

Conversation

Lennonka
Copy link
Contributor

@Lennonka Lennonka commented Dec 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

What changes are you introducing?

Adding support for TFTP-boot provisioning in IPv6 networks

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Satellite 6.17 has to comply with US Gov. requirement for IPv6 support

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

  • I've restructured a module into multiple modules so that my new module was easier to fit.
  • Tried to improve formatting in the existing module.

Checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into: N/A

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

The PR preview for c8d42a9 is available at theforeman-foreman-documentation-preview-pr-3532.surge.sh

The following output files are affected by this PR:

show diff

show diff as HTML

@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author and removed Not yet reviewed labels Dec 17, 2024
@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author labels Dec 18, 2024
@Lennonka Lennonka marked this pull request as ready for review December 18, 2024 19:59
@Lennonka Lennonka added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Dec 18, 2024
ekohl
ekohl reviewed Dec 18, 2024
View reviewed changes
guides/common/modules/ref_options-in-managed-dhcpv4.adoc
When the PXE loader is set to `none`, {Project} does not populate the `next-server` option into the DHCP record.

+
If the `next-server` option remains undefined, {Project} uses reverse DNS search to find a TFTP server address to assign, but you might encounter the following problems:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know this was already there, but this behavior has changed a long time ago. In Foreman 2.0 there was theforeman/foreman@60c03b6 which deprecated the old reverse DNS lookup for Smart Proxies incapable of a new feature (for n-1 support). In Foreman 2.5 this deprecated behavior was removed with theforeman/foreman@f3231f6.

The way it now works is:

  • It calls the Smart Proxy API to retrieve the serverName (as specified using --foreman-proxy-tftp-servername in the installer)
  • If this isn't returned, it uses the hostname of the Smart Proxy

It is up to the DHCP provider server to deal with a hostname and it depends on the implementation how this exactly works. For ISC DHCP the Smart Proxy now resolves the address:
https://github.com/theforeman/smart-proxy/blob/7060ce3e3951f070475e0c977fd3bf93e335d810/modules/dhcp_common/isc/omapi_provider.rb#L203-L215

And in reviewing this PR I've realized we should really use the option to set the tftp server name and let ISC DHCP deal with it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ekohl Thank you. I've created a separate PR so that we can cherry pick it.
Please review #3540

guides/common/modules/ref_options-in-managed-dhcpv4.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Lennonka Lennonka mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2024
Open
9 tasks
@ShimShtein
Copy link
Member

LGTM, it looks good!

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb added tech review done No issues from the technical perspective and removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective labels Dec 23, 2024
@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb added style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective and removed Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Dec 23, 2024
@Lennonka Lennonka mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2024
Open
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@apinnick apinnick apinnick left review comments

@ekohl ekohl ekohl requested changes

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb maximiliankolb approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective tech review done No issues from the technical perspective
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@Lennonka @ShimShtein @ekohl @maximiliankolb @apinnick