IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Rogge Henning" <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Tue, 03 August 2010 08:36 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 CB71E3A68C7 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 01:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.599, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 Mi6HQWy4UR4Y for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 01:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailguard.fgan.de (a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D1E3A686B for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 01:36:42 -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 1OgCzl-0007Xq-3e; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:37:09 +0200
Received: from mailserv1.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.96.101] helo=mailserv1.lorien.fkie.fgan.de) by mailhost.fgan.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1OgCzk-00044q-Rr; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:37:08 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:37:08 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01CB32F7.D1FE83A0"
Message-ID: <E41E2EFD375E3C4BBA54A4CAC3F50C241CEFF8@mailserv1.lorien.fkie.fgan.de>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ZbLtCZsJZoHjMHN7fO3DDc-PVP6NjddZhjB1Y@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
Thread-Index: Acsy5fT9nFHJ0l6pRT6swicgKc4GjAAALoyA
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl><AANLkTi=OQvQew9rRaHkH=62NjF6Qe-gcLz70VyiWogdK@mail.gmail.com><A14891DE-61C3-41EF-A22A-40FE71C722DA@inf-net.nl><201008030725.23669.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <AANLkTi=ZbLtCZsJZoHjMHN7fO3DDc-PVP6NjddZhjB1Y@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rogge Henning" <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
To: "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.96.1/11487/Tue Aug 3 04:16:15 2010) by mailguard.fgan.de
X-Scan-Signature: 3323e5da4f65bad0ae85b235b9833247
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: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:36:44 -0000

> Von: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] 
> 
> Hi Henning,
> 
> 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,
I would say we could live with the dependency of a unicast route to the
DHCPv6 server on all addresses which have been sucessfully configured by
this server.

> 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.
Are you sure DHCPv6 is a good sollution for this networks ? What kind of
mesh networks use no unicast capable routing protocol ?

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

v2.1.27 | Report a Bug | By Email