On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 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.
We must issue request/renew/release _both_ IA/PD queries on WAN interface(which connects to ISP equipment). LAN connected to customer equipment only. Any broadcast/multicast queries on LAN interface will never rich ISP without special ip(6)tables rules. For IPv4 scheme was simple - udhcpc client assign address on WAN, LAN has predefined private addresses (192.168.0.0/24). Customers works via NAT. For IPv6 similar scheme don't work - we hasn't private addresses at all. ISP must give our CPE /128 address + /64 prefix, at least. And this info can be in single DHCPv6 packet. Leonid _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
