<driesm.michi...@gmail.com> wrote in <006001d50b53$72a22e00$57e68a00$@gmail.com>:
dr> > I have a plan to import wide-dhcp6 into the base system because it is
simple
dr> > 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 and one
physical from a 56 delegation.
dr> For this config it errors out on parsing the config file ... while 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 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?
-- Hiroki
pgpqeIx39dhXR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
