Yep, I'm on the same page re: not replacing the server.
I didn't look into whether the patch made it in. If what you're saying
is correct then DHCPCD is probably a better idea if we can retrofit it
easily. I'll look at whether we are using a separate process for dhcpd
or not.
On 1/27/2016 4:54 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
To be clear, we're not talking about replacing the DHCP server. That
would still be ISC. We're talking about replacing the DHCP client.
I looked at the link you sent, and I read through all of the mailing
list threads from November, December, and January surrounding the
thread you sent me. Several different patches for PD prefix lengths
have been proposed. As of today, at this time, none of them have been
committed [1].
Given that none of them have been committed, I find it unlikely there
will be a stable ISC DHCP release with PD prefix length within the
next 6-9 months. After that, it would probably take another 3-6 months
before we could integrate the new version into VyOS and get PD prefix
length configuration written, and then probably another 3 months
before that would land in a release. I'd prefer not to see this
bare-RFC-minimum feature dragged out to 2017. I still support dropping
ISC's DHCP client in support of DHCPCD.
Also, FWIW, I've determined that the ISC server and client run as a
separate service, so that should support our efforts. We can continue
to run ISC as a DHCP server, and use DHCPCD as a client.
[1] https://source.isc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=dhcp.git;a=shortlog
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Seamus Caveney
<sea...@activesolutionsmi.com <mailto:sea...@activesolutionsmi.com>>
wrote:
It seems ISC added prefix len support just last December[1], if
this patch is in a stable release perhaps we can just work towards
updating our version of ISC DHCPD? Probably an easier solution
than switching to an entirely different DHCP server.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=dhcp-workers&m=144905666712005&w=2
On 1/27/2016 4:21 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
Excellent!
Given that, and what appears to be that DHCPCD is much better
supported and maintained than WIDE, I say we go with DHCPCD. In
order to know how best to proceed, we still need to know:
- Are we using ISC for just client, or also server?
- If we're using ISC for the DHCP server, does it run in a
separate process as the ISC client?
- If it runs in the same process, is it possible to turn off the
ISC client?
Nick
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Seamus Caveney
<sea...@activesolutionsmi.com
<mailto:sea...@activesolutionsmi.com>> wrote:
Yeah, their docs are rather poor. However I did find
confirmation that it supports customizing the prefix size[1].
The ia_pd instruction has the following options:
ia_pd [iaid] [prefix] [prefix_len]
So you can specify something like:
ia_pd 1 :: 60
for a /60 prefix.
[1]
https://dollarblogname.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/dynamic-prefix-delegation-can-be-easy/
On 1/27/2016 4:09 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
DHCPCD certainly looks like a great alternative to Wide. I'm
very interested in it. However, my two concerns:
- After about 15 minutes of looking around on their site,
and Googling, I can't find documentation of how to use it.
- After that same time, I also can't find any information
confirming that DHCPCD's Prefix Delegation support includes
the ability to request specific prefix sizes. ISC technical
has Prefix Delegation—the problem is that you can't
customize what size prefixes it requests, so you always get
a /64.
If you can point me to documentation about these two issues
that you've been able to find, that would be great.
N
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Corbe
<dco...@hammerfiber.com <mailto:dco...@hammerfiber.com>> wrote:
Why WIDE though? It’s crusty and old and full of bugs.
There’s a more modern DHCP client implementation for
Linux that’s neither WIDE nor ISC.
http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/index
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Nicholas Williams
<nicholas+v...@nicholaswilliams.net
<mailto:nicholas+v...@nicholaswilliams.net>> wrote:
>
> I spent some time this morning re-familiarizing myself
with this topic (I've set it down for the last year
because I've been otherwise occupied). I scoured the
webz for any sign that ISC plans on fixing the two core
discrepancies in their DHCPv6-PD support:
>
> 1. Being able to change the values sent in the
DHCPv6-PD request to specify the requested prefix length
desired.
> 2. Being able to divy-up the ISP-delegated prefix and
assign it to internal interfaces.
>
> If ISC would just support #1 (a must for any
legitimate DHCPv6 client), we could hack around #2 with
scripts. Unfortunately, one ear later, there there is no
sign that ISC has any intention of fixing this issue,
and I don't feel confident that patches would be
welcome. I think they don't want it fixed because they
don't think it's a good feature.
>
> Given all this, I believe the best way forward is to
integrate Wide-DHCPv6 client into VyOS:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/wide-dhcpv6/
>
> By all indications, Wide should largely be a drop-in
replacement for ISC for DHCPv6 requests. So, given that,
here is my proposed roadmap:
>
> Step 1: Replace ISC with Wide for DHCPv6 client
requests, but make no other changes. Put out a beta
version that many people can test. Ensure everything
still works the way it is working now. This help isolate
any problems caused by this migration from any problems
that could be caused by changing prefix delegation in VyOS.
>
> Step 2: Add necessary configuration options and
scripting for requesting prefix lengths and delegating
them to internal interfaces. Put out a beta version that
many people can test. Ensure everything still works the
way it is working now.
>
> Step 3. Release
>
> What I don't fully understand is to what extent we're
using ISC. Are we using it as both a client and a
server? Are we using a single process for client and
server, or separate processes? Are we using a single
process for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, or separate processes?
The answers to those questions will help to determine
how much work Step 1 involves. Wide-DHCPv6 is only a
client, and only for v6. So we'll have to keep using ISC
for v4 and serving (if we're using it for serving).
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Nicholas Williams
<nicholas+v...@nicholaswilliams.net
<mailto:nicholas+v...@nicholaswilliams.net>> wrote:
> > I see Bug ID 112 about adding a proper DHCPv6 PD
support. I’d also like to see a proper CLAT
implementation for VyOS for users who use service
providers that are kind enough to provide a PLAT service
to their customers.
> >
> > Is there any concerted effort going on right now to
actually get this work done? IE is there someone I
should talk to about contributing to the effort?
>
> Daniel,
>
> I'm not familiar with CLAT/PLAT, but I am mostly
familiar with Prefix
> Delegation and IA_PD. Because I'm a Comcast
residential customer, I am
> very motivated to get PD working with my VyOS
installation. You'll see
> I have been involved in discussions in Big ID 112
already. I am not
> super familiar with the VyOS source code, but I am
willing to help in
> any way I can, including testing experimental images
of VyOS with a
> new DHCP client and debugging issues. I may even, once
I become more
> familiar with the changes happening, be able to
suggest changes that
> need to happen in the code to get this working.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vyos-developers mailing list
> Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl
<mailto:Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl>
> https://lists.tuxis.nl/listinfo/vyos-developers
_______________________________________________
Vyos-developers mailing list
Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl
<mailto:Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl>
https://lists.tuxis.nl/listinfo/vyos-developers
--
Seamus Caveney
Senior Network Administrator
Active Solutions Group
4 Park Lane Blvd Ste 170 – Dearborn, MI 48126
phone:313.278.4522 x 102 <tel:313.278.4522%20x%20102>
_______________________________________________
Vyos-developers mailing list
Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl
<mailto:Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl>
https://lists.tuxis.nl/listinfo/vyos-developers
--
Seamus Caveney
Senior Network Administrator
Active Solutions Group
4 Park Lane Blvd Ste 170 – Dearborn, MI 48126
phone:313.278.4522 x 102 <tel:313.278.4522%20x%20102>
--
Seamus Caveney
Senior Network Administrator
Active Solutions Group
4 Park Lane Blvd Ste 170 – Dearborn, MI 48126
phone: 313.278.4522 x 102
_______________________________________________
Vyos-developers mailing list
Vyos-developers@lists.tuxis.nl
https://lists.tuxis.nl/listinfo/vyos-developers
