Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:53:55 +0200 From: <driesm.michiels@gmail.com> To: "'Hiroki Sato'" <hrs@allbsd.org> Cc: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: DHCPv6 client in base Message-ID: <00b101d50b57$edf75f90$c9e61eb0$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <00aa01d50b57$c84ac020$58e04060$@gmail.com> References: <001e01d50b49$176104d0$46230e70$@gmail.com> <20190516.032012.517661495892269813.hrs@allbsd.org> <006001d50b53$72a22e00$57e68a00$@gmail.com> <20190516.044252.1672818225777964175.hrs@allbsd.org> <00aa01d50b57$c84ac020$58e04060$@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message-----
> From: driesm.michiels@gmail.com <driesm.michiels@gmail.com>
> Sent: woensdag 15 mei 2019 21:53
> To: 'Hiroki Sato' <hrs@allbsd.org>
> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: DHCPv6 client in base
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@allbsd.org>
> > Sent: woensdag 15 mei 2019 21:43
> > To: driesm.michiels@gmail.com
> > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: DHCPv6 client in base
> >
> > <driesm.michiels@gmail.com> wrote
> > in <006001d50b53$72a22e00$57e68a00$@gmail.com>:
> >
> > dr> > I have a plan to import wide-dhcp6 into the base system =
because
> > dr> > it is simple enough.
> > dr>
> > dr> Thats nice! Any timeline for this; 13.0 RELEASE?
> >
> > Yes, at the latest. I originally planned it before 12.0 but not
> > happened for some non-technical reasons.
> >
> > dr> > More specifics about the complex configuration?
> > dr>
> > dr> My initial wording wasn't correct; wide-dhcp is in fact =
featureful
> > although buggy when config files get a bit bigger.
> > dr> Well I'm trying to assign a 64 prefix to two virtual interfaces
> > dr> and one
> > physical from a 56 delegation.
> > dr> For this config it errors out on parsing the config file ... =
while
> > dr> I'm 99%
> > certain there is not a problem in it.
> > dr>
> > dr> interface em0 {
> > dr> send rapid-commit;
> > dr> send ia-na 1;
> > dr> send ia-pd 1;
> > dr> };
> > dr>
> > dr> id-assoc na 1 { };
> > dr>
> > dr> id-assoc pd 1 {
> > dr> prefix ::/56 infinity;
> > dr> prefix-interface igb0 {
> > dr> sla-id 0;
> > dr> sla-len 8;
> > dr> };
> > dr> prefix-interface lo1 {
> > dr> sla-id 1;
> > dr> sla-len 8;
> > dr> };
> > dr> prefix-interface tun0 {
> > dr> sla-id 2;
> > dr> sla-len 8;
> > dr> };
> > dr> };
> > dr>
> > dr> May 15 21:20:50 May 15 21:20:50 vados dhcp6c[94383]: failed to
> > dr> parse configuration file
> >
> > In this configuration dhcp6c does not work because lo1 has no L2
> > address to generate an interface ID which will be used with the /64
> > prefix. Is there any specific reason why you want to use a loopback
> interface?
>=20
> I was planning to use the prefix on lo1 as the ext_if argument in an =
IPFW
> NPTv6 rule.
> That would translate my private jail addresses to their corresponding =
global
> ones from the prefix.
> I know its possible with VIMAGE to just run rtadvd on a bridge but I =
rather
> stay away from that, one rule in IPFW is all I need.
Was planning a similar setup for my OpenVPN clients on the tun0 =
interface.
>=20
> >
> > -- Hiroki
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00b101d50b57$edf75f90$c9e61eb0$>