[Kea-users] yet another question about multiple subnets %)

[perl-list]

> where do you see even a word about this in the documentation? in any
> documentation, not only for kea, the "shared network" is referred to as a
> pooled pool of addresses from which the dhcp server will take an address to
> assign to the client. could you quote exactly the place where it says about
> allocating multiple addresses at the same time from the pooled pool?


It wouldn't say anything about allocating 'n' addresses in the shared network documentation.  Shared network is a concept that groups subnets together.  Its only purpose is to tell the DHCP server that all of these subnets exist on the same interface or VLAN or whatever and that a client may use any address or prefix that is in this shared network.  

Why do you refuse to investigate if your client is actually asking for multiple addresses?


> no RA is needed for dhcpv6 to work. these are different protocols, different
> group addresses. moreover, there may not be a router in the network at all, but
> what does this have to do with dhcp(no matter v4 or v6)? maybe you are
> confusing ff02::1:2 and ff02::2? these are not the same thing, they are
> generally different things. so when we don't have a router with its RA on the
> network, the client cannot request something specific in any way(but to request
> two, three, etc. addresses is to request something specific) before the server
> tells him about the existence of this particular one. can't you see that you're
> traveling in time?


RA are absolutely needed for DHCPv6 to work.  Properly working clients won't do anything but sit there with an fe80:: address on its interface if no RA tells it what else to assign and how to do so (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5175.html) leaving your only option to manually assign address information to the interface on the client.  If there is no router, then there will be no upstream routing and you have no need of anything other than an fe80:: as clients on the local network will discover each other and happily talk to each other's fe80:: address.


> one more time: address allocation and traffic routing are completely different
> tasks that practically do not overlap. at least because there may not be a
> router on the network, but ip addresses will still needs


In the case of DHCPv6 prefix delegation, DHCPv6 and routing absolutely overlap.  Routes must be added to the upstream router telling said router that your client has been allocated such prefix or you won't be routing anywhere as the router will have no idea that said prefix exists on your local network behind your DHCPv6 client.