Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Wed, 04 August 2010 06:29 UTC
Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
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 049463A69DC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.987,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905]
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 MKPeMNOTd-jX for
<autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailguard.fgan.de (mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de
[IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with
ESMTP id 71DA73A6781 for <autoconf@ietf.org>;
Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fgan.de) by
mailguard.fgan.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1OgXU5-0007FN-8H;
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:29:49 +0200
Received: from stream.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.5.148] helo=stream.localnet) by
mailhost.fgan.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1OgXU4-0007Sx-Vs;
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:29:49 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:29:34 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-24-generic; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl>
<AANLkTi=ZbLtCZsJZoHjMHN7fO3DDc-PVP6NjddZhjB1Y@mail.gmail.com>
<29650CDE-A6A8-40C9-B626-FA8E58CA0345@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <29650CDE-A6A8-40C9-B626-FA8E58CA0345@inf-net.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7718863.3sI0CBcDWu";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201008040829.45561.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.96.1/11493/Wed Aug 4 05:08:50 2010) by
mailguard.fgan.de
X-Scan-Signature: 33310ad9788a957f7423ac134a469312
Cc: 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: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:29:23 -0000
On Wed August 4 2010 08:21:11 Teco Boot wrote: > Op 3 aug 2010, om 10:28 heeft Ulrich Herberg het volgende geschreven: > > Hi Henning, > > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Henning Rogge > > > > <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> is there a reason why we cannot place an DHCPv6-relay on every node for > >> its neighbors ? Each node requesting an address/prefix will send out an > >> IP datagram with an anycast destination an a linklocal source, which > >> will be forwarded by its neighbors (with a unicast) to the > >> DHCPv6-server. > > > > Sure, that works. DHCP clients would typically send their messages to > > the All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address. However, that > > necessitates the use of a unicast routing protocol, because the relay > > has to have a route towards the DHCP server. The question is, do we > > want to depend on that? I think we should also have a running autoconf > > mechanism in cases when there is no unicast routing protocol in place. > > This is the 2b scenario. > A problem is that all neighbors relay the DHCP request. In a dense network, > (to) many neighbors will relay. One can think of a backpressure mechanism. > Another problem is the discovery of the DHCP server(s). Easy to solve, > solutions are around (BRDP is just one of them). But in many solutions, > the MANET protocol is adjusted for service discovery support. (BRDP is not > a MANET protocol, it is an RA extension). Does a DHCP-reply from a relay contain the address of the DHCP-server ? > I don't think the need for a routing protocol for forwarding packages is a > problem. There are no functional MANETs without. I agree with this. Henning Rogge -- Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE Kommunikationssysteme (KOM) Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany Telefon +49 228 9435-961, Fax +49 228 9435 685 mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0
- [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Suppo… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Rogge Henning
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? S… Joe Macker