> From: Denys Vlasenko [mailto:[email protected]] > >> 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 > > udhcpc handles all configurational tasks by running a script. This is a VERY > generic mechanism. The script certainly can "assign prefix(es) to sub- > interface(s) as per rfs3633". It can do much more than that. > For example, on my machines the script (re)starts ntpd if needed. > Imagine the awkwardness of hard-coding *that* into C code.
Event-driven script scheme with preprocessed IA-PD is more than ok for me, I meant it. > From: Denys Vlasenko [mailto:[email protected]] > This does not explain the problem for me. > You have two interfaces? No problem: run two udchpc6's, one per interface. Previous conversations looked like nobody wants to process IA-PD for sub-interface(s) in single dhcpv6c client, and it needs to start *another* instance of dhcpv6 client on the same upstream interface. Sorry, if I got you wrong. Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
