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