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

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Mon, 02 August 2010 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D86D3A67D4 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.883, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-D3WsClLkJl for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219A13A6A33 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so2337253bwz.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.84.37 with SMTP id h37mr4268711bkl.201.1280771076766; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.163.5 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A649E15C43BE@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl> <DB76629A-3BC9-46A0-BE4E-8E918E6AD63B@inf-net.nl> <AANLkTi=OQvQew9rRaHkH=62NjF6Qe-gcLz70VyiWogdK@mail.gmail.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A649E15C43BE@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:44:36 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9FkZz27e0ChK1Vi3ZCLeZgTdxzhgqKDp4qz4u@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:44:11 -0000

Fred,

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> 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"
>
> The client function would never see a Relay-forward, because
> that is generated by the relay function and sent to either the
> unicast address of a server or All-DHCP-Servers multicast. Maybe
> you meant section 15.14 "Clients and servers MUST discard any
> received Relay-reply messages"? But, it is the node's relay
> function (and not the client function) that gets the
> Relay-reply so this is not in violation of the spec.

Thanks for that clarification. If this demultiplexing is possible,
than it should indeed not be a problem. Is that explicitly mentioned
in the RFC?

>
>> and
>> (ii) section 15.3 "servers and relay agents MUST discard any received
>> Advertise messages".
>
> The node's client function (and not the relay function) is the
> one that gets the Advertise message when 4-message exchange is
> used; the relay function sees only the Relay-reply and then
> forwards the Advertise on to the client function.

Same comment as above.

> Also, in
> 2-message exchange there is no Advertise message.
>
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com

Ulrich

>[..]