On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Leonid Lisovskiy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> One upstream(listen) interface - yes. But simplification to single >>> downstream (IA, PD) interface seems to be bad idea. >> >> Can you elaborate why is it a bad idea? > > Of course, yes. For a example, take linux(busybox)-based CPE - > router/gateway/access point. It has at least two interfaces - WAN & > LAN. In case of DHCPv6 used by ISP to provide IPv6 access, we have to: > > 1) assign address(IA) on WAN interface > 2) assing prefix(PD) on LAN interface > > Thus, we must support two interfaces, at least.
This does not explain the problem for me. You have two interfaces? No problem: run two udchpc6's, one per interface. >>> Unfortunately, a few ISP's provide multi-server DHCP setups. Most of >>> them are buggy, but they are exists :( >>> For example - Beeline ISP, Ekaterinburg, Russia. >> >> If "always select very first received server reply" doesn't work for them, >> then their installation is broken IMO. > > Yes, you are absolutely right, but in some places it is monopoly ISP > :( And customers claims go to trash can - "windows works" it is > typical answer. udhcpc (IPv4) has the same problem: it doesn't collect many offers, it uses the first one. If we want to fix this behavior, let's fix it in both IPv4 and IPv6 clients. It is not particularly hard to fix, in fact. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
