DHCPv6 Option 18 (interface-id) relay problem

[Andreas Hanke]

Hello Frank,

I don't like to use RADIUS with PPoE because the overhead of the DHCP
traffic is slimmer and so have more performance.

Other ideas in the DHCP word?

thanks a lot

Andreas Hanke

Am 08.11.2012 13:00, schrieb dhcp-users-request at lists.isc.org:
> Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
>       dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       dhcp-users-request at lists.isc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       dhcp-users-owner at lists.isc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE: DHCPv6 Option 18 (interface-id) relay problem (Frank Bulk)
>    2. Re: DHCPv6 Option 18 (interface-id) relay problem
>       (Christian Kratzer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:41:01 -0600
> From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com>
> To: <dhcp-users at lists.isc.org>
> Subject: RE: DHCPv6 Option 18 (interface-id) relay problem
> Message-ID: <000801cdbd52$1c2e80b0$548b8210$@iname.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Can you use RADIUS instead?
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> From: dhcp-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname.com at lists.isc.org
> [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname.com at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
> Andreas Hanke
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:52 AM
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> Subject: DHCPv6 Option 18 (interface-id) relay problem
>
>
>
> Hello together,
>
> I am working on a problem with my ISC DCHP Version 4.2.4-P2 server for IPv6
> since a lot of days.
> But I could not found a solution. So I hope someone could help me.
>
> - Situation:
> I have to discover the Host by an interface id to give him a fixed IP
> address.
> This interface id will inserted by an DSLAM which is connected to a lot of
> DSL Modems.
> The interface id is the identifier, on which physical port the DSL Modem is
> connected.
> I like to use the host definition into my dhcp.conf:
> example:
>
> host ws {
>         host-identifier option dhcp6.interface-id "Interface-ID: DSLAM01 eth
> 2/1/01/21"
>         fixed-address6 2001:db8:1:1::701;
> }
>
>
>
> - My setup:
> Client PC with DSL Modem <-------------> DSLAM which is inserting a option
> 18 with the interface id <-----------> CISCO 7606-S Router which have a
> helper at the interface which is connected to the DHCP server. This helper
> forward the DCHP Message to the DHCP server and works as a relay
> <-----------> ISC DCHP server for IPv6
>
> - Parts of my server configuration:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------
> # Please see:
> http://www.ipamworldwide.com/dhcp-options/isc-dhcpv6-options.html
> #This function logs the DHCPv6 client id, which means the Link Local Address
> (Option 1)
> log(info,concat("Client-ID: " , binary-to-ascii(16,8,"-",option
> dhcp6.client-id)));
> #This function logs the DHCPv6 interface id, which means the port of the
> DSLAM (Option 18)
> log(info,concat("Interface-ID: " , option dhcp6.interface-id));
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> - My problem:
> The ISC DHCP server could not discover the interface-id (Option 18), which
> is inserted by the DSLAM -> get no log message (see configuration).
> The client-id (Option 1), which is inserted by the Client PC with DSL Modem
> works fine -> get log message (see configuration).
>
> I tested it without CISCO and without DSLAM/DSL Modem direct connect over an
> Networkswitch and inserting the interface-id (Option 18) by the Client PC,
> that works -> get log message (see configuration).
>
> After that I analysed the TCP packets. What I found out is, that the
> difference is that:
> - Message type "RELAY-FORW (12)" with CISCO and DSLAM/DSL Modem:
> <field name="dhcpv6.msgtype" showname="Message type: Relay-forw (12)"
> size="1" pos="62" show="12" value="0c"/>
> - Message type "SOLICIT (1)" without CISCO and DSLAM/DSL Modem:
> <field name="dhcpv6.msgtype" showname="Message type: Solicit (1)" size="1"
> pos="62" show="1" value="01"/>
>
> Side information:
> If I configured an ipv6 range without host definitions into my dhcp.conf the
> Client PC get in both situations an ip6 address.
>
> Could you tell me if the message type is the problem and if yes what I have
> to change?
> If no, what went wrong?
>
> I have attached the both network packets with situation 1 "with CISCO and
> DSLAM" and situation 2 "without CISCO and DSLAM".
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help!
>


R-KOM Regensburger Telekommunikationsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,
Kommanditgesellschaft, Sitz Regensburg, Registergericht Regensburg,
HRA 5818
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin und Geschäftsführung:
R-KOM Regensburger Telekommunikationsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH,
Sitz Regensburg, Registergericht Regensburg,
HRB 6764; Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Alfred Rauscher