> From: Denys Vlasenko [mailto:[email protected]] > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Leonid Lisovskiy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Denys Vlasenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I think that maybe emulating existing dhcp6c tool with its config > >> file and command line is not a good idea. This will make DHCP and > >> DHCPv6 clients in busybox to be very different. > > > > Agree, but redesign of applet I was postpone for the future. Seems to > > be, this time is come... > > But I don't see any way to simplify dhcp6c config file like udhcpc > > since we can have several IA/PD. > > I prefer to follow the model of udhcpc, where one instance of client daemon > configures one interface.
This will completely break rfc3633 support. > >> Maybe we need a udhcpc6 applet which is similar to udhcpc. > >> > >> For one, it should handle one interface. This simplifies many things. > > > > 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? This is bad idea, because it should be only one and same dhcpv6 client (id) which is responsible for: 1) receiving/assigning address to interface it running on 2) receiving/assigning prefix(es) to sub-interface(s) as per rfs3633 There's no analogues in IPv4 DHCP at all and it's incorrect to compare dhcpv4 with dhcpv6 with PD in this case. Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
