DHCPv6

[cholzhauer]

Has anyone found a good platform/program to run DHCPv6?  I'm currently running RA, but I would like to include DNS servers and other options in IPv6

Thanks

[grobe0ba]

What is RA? Not an abbreviation I'm familiar with.

[cholzhauer]

RA= Router Advertisement

[hisken]

Has anyone found a good platform/program to run DHCPv6?  I'm currently running RA, but I would like to include DNS servers and other options in IPv6

Thanks

The ISC already has a DHCPv6-server but the availability in various Linux distributions is so-so. I currently use wide-dhcpv6-server, which works just fine. Remember you'll still need RA's to use DHCP. In radvd set the OtherConfig and Managed flags. Or, if you just want to set the DNS and things like that only set the OtherConfig flag.

[cholzhauer]

At this point, all I really want it for is DNS servers.  I've read that RA is supposed to be able to give out info about name servers, but I have yet to find any place/implementation that will do it.

I'll go check out wide-dhcpv6-server

[patrickdk]

radvd is doing a great job for me :)

interface eth0
{
   AdvSendAdvert on;
   # IgnoreIfMissing on;
   #MinRtrAdvInterval 3;
   #MaxRtrAdvInterval 10;
   AdvDefaultPreference low;
   AdvHomeAgentFlag off;
        AdvLinkMTU 1500;

   prefix 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::8/64
   {
      AdvValidLifetime 86400;
      AdvPreferredLifetime 14400;
      AdvOnLink on;
      AdvAutonomous on;
      AdvRouterAddr on;
   };

   route ::/0
   {
   };

        RDNSS 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::8 2001:470:xxxx:xxxx::9
   {
   };
};

[cholzhauer]

Hmm.. Maybe it's because I'm running RA from my firewall and not from Linux/Unix/... ?

[patrickdk]

That shouldn't make a difference, other than the customization and options available are normally limited on those type of devices due to gui constraints.

[cholzhauer]

Yeah, the GUI or command line don't give an option to do DNS stuff...I'll have to email Cisco

[kriteknetworks]

RDNSS is not widely supported, ensure your client machines support it.

[cholzhauer]

RDNSS is not widely supported, ensure your client machines support it

Do you happen to know off hand which ones do support it?

I did email Cisco regarding this, here is their response

Hello,

Currently this functionality is not supported. I did find a feature
enhancement: CSCtg92043. I have sent an email to the owner of this enhancement and asked if there are plans to add it to the code. I will let you know what he says.

[cholzhauer]

Furthermore:

The development team told me that there are no plans to implement this feature enhancement. These types of things are driven by the marketing team. If you want to drive this you need to contact your Cisco account team and ask them to file a PERS request on your behalf. You can give them the feature enhancement number that I gave you earlier.

[jimb]

RDNSS is not widely supported, ensure your client machines support it

Do you happen to know off hand which ones do support it?

I did email Cisco regarding this, here is their response

Hello,

Currently this functionality is not supported. I did find a feature
enhancement: CSCtg92043. I have sent an email to the owner of this enhancement and asked if there are plans to add it to the code. I will let you know what he says.

Yeah that's the problem.  Not only to some RAs not support it, but many clients don't support RDNSS feature without additional software added.  I know neither XP or linux support it out of the box without running software which listens for it.

Also, note that DHCPv6 also doesn't support the setting of default routes from what I understand.  The "powers that be" consider that an unnecessary feature that is handled by RA.  So the idea is that you run both, DHCPv6 for address assignment and other DHCP type stuff (DNS servers), and RA to advertise routes.  (someone correct me if this is wrong ... this is based on what I've read on various IPv6/networking email lists, and I've yet to try to set up a DHCPv6 server)

The development team told me that there are no plans to implement this feature enhancement. These types of things are driven by the marketing team. If you want to drive this you need to contact your Cisco account team and ask them to file a PERS request on your behalf. You can give them the feature enhancement number that I gave you earlier.

This is unfortunately very typical of most networking vendors.  Whenever someone requests, or complains about an IPv6 feature, or feature parity between IPv6 and IPv4 on a networking device, the vendor always falls back on "the market isn't currently demanding it."   :-\  It's sort of a vicious cycle.  The lack of features impedes IPv6 adoption, which causes lower market demand for IPv6 and IPv6 features/parity.   :(

There were at few heated complaints about this at the recent Google IPv6 implementers conference I attended when Cisco and Juniper reps finished their presentations and called for questions.   :P

[cholzhauer]

Also, note that DHCPv6 also doesn't support the setting of default routes from what I understand.  The "powers that be" consider that an unnecessary feature that is handled by RA.  So the idea is that you run both, DHCPv6 for address assignment and other DHCP type stuff (DNS servers), and RA to advertise routes.  (someone correct me if this is wrong ... this is based on what I've read on various IPv6/networking email lists, and I've yet to try to set up a DHCPv6 server)

Seems like quite the pain...It seems to me that DHCPv6 should mimic DHCPv4, but maybe that's "IPv4 thinking"  Oh well.

[jimb]

Also, note that DHCPv6 also doesn't support the setting of default routes from what I understand.  The "powers that be" consider that an unnecessary feature that is handled by RA.  So the idea is that you run both, DHCPv6 for address assignment and other DHCP type stuff (DNS servers), and RA to advertise routes.  (someone correct me if this is wrong ... this is based on what I've read on various IPv6/networking email lists, and I've yet to try to set up a DHCPv6 server)

Seems like quite the pain...It seems to me that DHCPv6 should mimic DHCPv4, but maybe that's "IPv4 thinking"  Oh well.

Yeah.  It's yet another debate going on.  There's some proposals and draft RFCs to add the capability.  But there are two camps of course, those who think routes only belong in RA, and those that think it should work like DHCPv4.  Get on the ipv6-ops and NANOG lists and u can sit back with your popcorn and watch these debates from time to time.  :P