Subject: [dhcwg] Setting up a DHCPv6 server and client

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:58:32 +0530 (IST)

I want to set up a dhcpv6 server on Fedora core 3. For the testing of
server I have installed fedora core 3 on two computer and connected them
by cross cable. I have mannualy assign IPV6 global address to both the
computer and now ping6 command successfully running on both the system.Now
I want to set up one computer as DHCPV6 server and other as client.
        >>  What procedure i have to follow ?

I have also downloaded the file
         dhcpv6-0.10-11_FC3.i386.rpm and
         dhcpv6_client-0.10-11_FC3.i386.rpm

>> I have to install these two file on both system or file     
dhcpv6-0.10-11_FC3.i386.rpm on server and
dhcpv6_client-0.10-11_FC3.i386.rpm on client.
Plz help me
thanks in adv.

santosh yadav
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:36:44 -0500

Santosh - the dhcwg mailing list is intended for the discussion of the DHCP
and DHCPv6 protocols themselves.  For information about a specific
implementation, you should access the e-mail list or other support available
for that implementation.

- Ralph

---

From: "Gobinath.S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:38:01 +0530

If that is the case, why no body come forward to clear my doubt on
dhcpv6?

I have already sent a mail asking this doubt. Still I have doubt on
this.

I am resending this mail. Pls if anyone knows, clear my doubt.

Hi!

            Please tell me whether my interpretation is correct or not. 

Interpretation 1:

As per RFC 3736, 

DHCPv6 Stateless Auto configuration DOES NOT SUPPORT the following
messages:

Solicit,

Advertise, 

Request, 

Reconfigure,

Renew, 

Rebind, and

Decline. 

DHCPv6 Stateless Auto configuration does support the following messages:

            Information-Request and

            Reply.

            Is it correct?

Interpretation 2:

As per RFC 3315, 

We can even send the Solicit message to update information other than
address assignment.

Example:

We can send Solicit Message,

WITHOUT IA-options, and

WITH Option-request-option to update the DNS-recursive-name-server.

Is it correct?

Please help me by clarifying my doubt as soon as possible.

With best regards,

S.Gobinath.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ralph Droms
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Setting up a DHCPv6 server and client

Santosh - the dhcwg mailing list is intended for the discussion of the
DHCP
and DHCPv6 protocols themselves.  For information about a specific
implementation, you should access the e-mail list or other support
available
for that implementation.

- Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:25:00 -0500

I don't know that I can pick one interpretation as "right" and one as
"wrong".  Regarding "Interpretation 1", RFC 3736 is intended to give
guidance to implementors who want to provide DHCPv6 service for "stateless
DHCPv6," which we define as "other configuration information" without
address assignment.  That goal can be accomplished through the
implementation and use of only the Information-request and Reply messages,
as documented in RFC 3736.

The scenario you describe in "interpretation 2" can also be used provide
"other configuration information" without address assignment.

- Ralph