On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:40:04PM +, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>> After thinking about support for ipv6 + dhcpv6 in smart-poxy and
>> Foreman some more, I realized that:
>>
>> - while host duid management is possible, it’s goi
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:40:04PM +, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
> After thinking about support for ipv6 + dhcpv6 in smart-poxy and
> Foreman some more, I realized that:
>
> - while host duid management is possible, it’s going to be somewhat
> involved (quite a few different scenarios) and possib
It also worth mentioning Kea. Which is the ISC next generation DHCP server.
http://kea.isc.org/wiki
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh
wrote:
> After thinking about support for ipv6 + dhcpv6 in smart-poxy and
> Foreman some more, I realized that:
>
> - while host duid managemen
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
> It also worth mentioning Kea. Which is the ISC next generation DHCP server.
>
> http://kea.isc.org/wiki
>
I’m aware of Kea. Unfortunately, there is no management api and the
only way to integrate with it is via db (not sure how stable the
sche
After thinking about support for ipv6 + dhcpv6 in smart-poxy and
Foreman some more, I realized that:
- while host duid management is possible, it’s going to be somewhat
involved (quite a few different scenarios) and possibly fragile
- dhcp servers can be configured to update dns records automati
We can always try to offload the work on platform team, I've been
pretty successful in getting some work done in iPXE project for
example. The only issue is this can take some time until it gets to
the other team backlog.
To be honest, I don't know which path you should take. I'd vote for
the clea
I'm sorry I was a little confused, I thought we were talking about adding
support for fixed-address6 to foreman. Not adding better support to ISC DHCP
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to add su
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to add support for fixed-address6 or is there some
> issue with doing that?
It looks to me like ISC aren’t really interested in extending
functionality of dhcpd. On top of this, it may actually be more work
than it looks:
Wouldn't it be better to add support for fixed-address6 or is there some
issue with doing that?
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
> >> This is definitely the case as far as ipv6-specific dhcpd
> >> configuration goes. T
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
>> This is definitely the case as far as ipv6-specific dhcpd
>> configuration goes. The code I linked to is responsible for
>> persistence of in-memory host records, and it doesn’t support ipv6 at
>> all.
>
> Maybe I am confused. Are you trying to
>
> This is definitely the case as far as ipv6-specific dhcpd
> configuration goes. The code I linked to is responsible for
> persistence of in-memory host records, and it doesn’t support ipv6 at
> all.
Maybe I am confused. Are you trying to add support for fixed-address6 or
trying to work around
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>> - It is difficult to determine host’s client id (dhcp unique identifier, AKA
>> DUID)
>
> What you mean by that? If sysadmins let DUID to change, they are
> breaking IPv6 specs and s
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
> - It is difficult to determine host’s client id (dhcp unique identifier, AKA
> DUID)
What you mean by that? If sysadmins let DUID to change, they are
breaking IPv6 specs and servers will mis-behave. What exactly are you
trying to solve her
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Perry Gagne wrote:
>
> Doesn't ISC DHCPD use " fixed-address6", "range6", etc for DHCPv6. The code
> you linked seems to be related to "fixed-address" which is the ipv4 variant.
>
This is definitely the case as far as ipv6-specific dhcpd
configuration goes. The cod
Doesn't ISC DHCPD use " fixed-address6", "range6", etc for DHCPv6. The code
you linked seems to be related to "fixed-address" which is the ipv4
variant.
Another question I have, does DHCP really need to be the one assigning the
address? Should DHCP just be providing config info, and leave the addr
I'm working on adding support for IPv6/DHCPv6 on smart-proxy side, and
have come across several issues on which I'd like to hear your
thoughts.
- It is not possible to assign ipv6 addresses to host records
(reservations) when ISC dhcpd is used.
This is due to a limitation in host record serializa
16 matches
Mail list logo
