Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Teco,

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Teco Boot <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> Do you mean DHCP relay can be used on a node, that request an address
> for itself?

I have tried that a while ago. It works with some limitations (see below).

>
> I think it could work this way:
> 1) Node queries with link-local to All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers.
> 2a) Node acts as also relay and queries with ULA (site-local) to All_DHCP_Servers.

Do you mean that a node is DHCP client and relay in the same time?
That is not possible according to RFC3315, which says (i) in section
15.13 "clients MUST discard any received Relay-forward messages" and
(ii) section 15.3 "servers and relay agents MUST discard any received
Advertise messages".

Also, the relay would need to have a direct unicast connection to the
central node or use other relaying mechanisms such as SMF (as you
mentioned below), because multiple relaying is not really feasible in
DHCPv6 itself: Relaying uses encapsulation, so packets would be
encapsulated at every hop, quickly increasing overhead. And I also
don't think that DHCP relaying allows duplicate packet detection.

> 2b) If node is provisioned with DHCP server unicast address, it could use that
>    instead of All_DHCP_Servers.

Sure, that is possible if a unicast routing protocol is used.

> I think this is in line with your RFC 5558.
>
> Drawback of 1: it can result in high number of relayed DHCP packets, in case
> of many neighbors.

True.

> Another drawback of 1: there is a timeout delay when there is no relay or server
> at one hop.

But I guess this timeout can be set dynamically?

>
> For 2a: the network needs multicast support. Could be SMF.

Yes, that could be a possibility.


>
> For both 2a and 2b: a temporally used unicast address must be routable. So this
> DHCP mechanism can only be used as a second step, moving from the self-generated
> address to a centrally managed address.

Yes, that seems possible (but I have to re-read the DHCPv6 RFC after
my vacations ;-)

Ulrich

>
> Teco
>
>
>
>
> Op 30 jul 2010, om 17:40 heeft Templin, Fred L het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Teco,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Teco Boot
>>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:58 AM
>>> To: [e-mail] [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
>>>
>>> RFC3315:
>>>   ...     The client
>>>   MUST use a link-local address assigned to the interface for which it
>>>   is requesting configuration information as the source address in the
>>>   header of the IP datagram.
>>>
>>> Question: can we get around a MUST in a standards track RFC?
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> If the MANET router only behaves as a client on an internal
>> link (e.g., a loopback) but behaves as a relay on its MANET
>> interfaces, then link-locals need not be exposed for DHCPv6
>> purposes. There are other reasons why link-locals might need
>> to be considered for MANETs, but I'm not sure this is one
>> of them.
>>
>> Fred
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>> The to be posted proposed text for to be RFC5889 would say that if link-locals are used, there are
>>> potential problems when using other than modified EUI-64 IIDs, and therefore must be based on
>>> modified EUI-64 IIDs.
>>>
>>> Second question, on first item in charter: do we limit ourself to MANET routers that has modified
>>> EUI-64 link-locals?
>>> I think: better think twice.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Teco.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Autoconf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>