I have one outstanding issue with ahcpd that I'd like to resolve the right way.
The head of openwrt and the related luci gui currently are not configuring ahcpd correctly in the presence of *multiple* client interfaces. Instead of firing off a single ahcpd instance, e.g. ahcpd [some options] wlan1 wlan2 wlan3 The current incorrect code attempts to fire off one copy of the daemon per device, e.g.g: ahcpd [some options] wlan1 ahcpd [some options] wlan2 ahcpd [some options] wlan3 which odoesn't work. Now, the code in /etc/init.d/ahcpd tries (or rather, tried at some point in the past) to do the right thing, but it is currently overridden and ignored by the normal ifup code which does the above. Luci also has very excellent support for the server/forwarder modes of ahcpd. This leads to my questions: 1a) Should the configuration distinguish between server/forwarder/client at the gui level? below that, ahcp.sh, ignore the ifup stuff entirely for interfaces marked as ahcp capable) (so the only way to bring up or down ahcpd is to fiddle with the daemon, rather than ifup) 1b) related to that solution it would be kind of nice to autoassign the local ahcp marked devices their address also via ahcp... 2a) Alternatively there could be an 'option' 'type' 'ahcp' or 'network name 'mesh' or something like that, to more finely control the behavior in ifup/down. ahcpd could be stopped and restarted with new interfaces... I actually kind of like 2a as that lets me reconfigure more stuff on the fly, such as network channels... but that still leaves conflicting with 1a as something of a problem. 3) I don't quite 'get' the distinction between server/forwarder/client in AHCPD. The specific scenario I have in mind is INTERNET->GW1-> 2002:XXXX:YYYY::/48 INTERNET->GW2-> 2002:XXXX:ZZZZ::/48 (I use 2002:XXXX:ZZZZ:bab0::/64 as a convention for the babel mesh presently, where 2002:XXXX:ZZZZ is the correct 6in4 address of the gateway) where I would like both GW1 and GW2 to announce their addresses and participate in the flooding protocol, acting as servers. But it would be useful for both to have each other's subnets available so if one goes down, the other gw could take over, and the leases to be relatively short. (obviously this would also require policy routing, and I haven't tried fiddling with this at this level yet) This last is not entirely relevant to solving the multiple interfaces problem denoted in the first place.... it would be good to have a clean solution to the original problem of 1a and/or 2a stated above.... is there a case where ahcpd could be used in both server and client mode that makes sense? -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
