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

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Op 2 aug 2010, om 23:46 heeft Ulrich Herberg het volgende geschreven:

>>> 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".
>> 
>> I don't think there is such limitation.
>> A node that combines client and relay would not send out a packet that does
>> not conform to the spec.
> 
> Fred pointed that out. I wonder whether that demultiplexing is clearly
> pointed out in the DHCPv6 RFC. But well, too late to change it ;-)
> I assume that major DHCPv6 implementations do not implement that
> demultiplexing (they'd need to share the UDP port, demultiplex
> messsages etc.) (-- I know, that's not so much a problem of the
> standardization process.. just wondering here)

I don't see the problem.


>>> 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.
>> 
>> Yes, relaying and encap on every hop is a bad idea, I think.
>> But we don't have a standard track multicast protocol for MANETs.
>> We also don't have a protocol for service discovery, for learning the
>> DHCP server address.
>> This makes our work experimental.
> 
> Indeed. It would make life easier to have such protocols as RFCs
> already :-) With SMF, we have at least a protocol which is not so far
> from being published as RFC.

SMF is experimental.


Teco