> On 20.2.2015, at 22.01, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Steven Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Am 19. Februar 2015 20:05:56 MEZ, schrieb Ted Lemon <[email protected]>: >>> Hm, I will have to try it out. Is it in a distribution? >> >> ohybridproxy in openwrt. It's mainly useful with hnetd (hncp) though. >> >> Manual configuration without hncp is a bit awkward since you need to name >> each link manually and on every router configure the resolver (e.g. >> dnsmasq). I guess we might want to provide a little example for 2 links at >> some point. > I would like to deploy hncp in my upcoming make-wifi-fast testbed. > However the biggest headache is ensuring that all the routers > inbetween have hncp burned into them, and are only acting as relays as > I generally only obtain a few (/60) real IPv6 prefixes per GW and they > only need to be on the APs. > > GW1 - routerA - routerB - routerC - routerD - AP1 > | > GW2 - routerE - routerF - routerG - routerH - AP2 > | > AP3 > > GW3 ... > > (the actual topology of the testbed is way more complex than this > (covering ethernet, wifi, and moca) and I am not going into it here) > > 1) is there a way to configure hncpd as purely a relay, and NOT do any > address assignment at all on routers B,C,D,F,G,H?
In theory (=spec), but not in current implementation (I _think_). You do not really need non-linklocal addresses for HNCP, or routing protocol, so as long as there are no hosts on the link.. (traceroute is a bitch though given just linklocals) As workaround in current implementation, if you set it to assign e.g. /80 per link used for your intermediate links, you would have almost all of address space left; however, in your case, I am not sure you can even afford to split one /64 for that purpose. > 2) have you tested that it is indeed possible to get the separate ipv6 > prefixes from GW1,GW2,GW3 to AP1,AP2, AP3? Yes. > 3) Can ULA and "Real" address assignment be distinguished along the > way? I have no problem assigning ULAs to the routers, but dont want to > use up real addresses on them. In theory (=spec), not in current implementation (ULA is actively discouraged in current impl, I cannot remember if there was option to override). > 4) What happens when someone pulls the plug on GW1, it reboots, and > gets a new Ipv6 subnet (I have seen comcast do this to me > every time that happens with the code I have in place now - no > retraction, and I go through hell manually eliminating every former > prefix from the network. Yes. I have upses. And cerowrt, at least, > stays up for 90+ days without a problem. But it happens and sucks when > it does) Renumbering should just work as usual. I.e. rest of nodes should learn of the new prefix, and old one should disappear. -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
