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

Teco Boot <> Sat, 31 July 2010 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0513A69A6 for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xrvQFK8B+5vQ for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0099D3A69B2 for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1038303ewy.31 for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y13mr1773104ebc.70.1280584620558; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id z55sm5171794eeh.21.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:56:58 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:56:38 -0000


Do you mean DHCP relay can be used on a node, that request an address 
for itself?

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.
2b) If node is provisioned with DHCP server unicast address, it could use that 
    instead of All_DHCP_Servers.
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.
Another drawback of 1: there is a timeout delay when there is no relay or server
at one hop.

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

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.


Op 30 jul 2010, om 17:40 heeft Templin, Fred L het volgende geschreven:

> Teco,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On Behalf Of Teco Boot
>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:58 AM
>> To:
>> 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
>> 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