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

[3]

>> 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.  
the interface has nothing to do with the shared pool from the "shared network". there can be several interfaces(for example, for load balancing), each with its own pool. all these pools can be combined into one, and a dhcp server located on a specific interface will be able to serve them all(for this he will need to forward requests from other interfaces, but this is no longer his concern)

> Why do you refuse to investigate if your client is actually asking for multiple addresses?
i have no idea what it should look like, so what should i investigate the? all i see is:
-the client to the group address of the dhcp servers: hey! is there anyone here? give me an address!
-the dhcp server to the link-local address of the client: i am here. here's the one address for you.
-the client to the server: can i to take this one address for myself?
-the server to the client: no problem!
so in what place should the client request multiple addresses from the server so that it doesn't look absurd?

>> 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.  
seriously? i just killed rad and reconnected the client. shall i tell you what has changed? NOTHING! do you think the dhcp client in windows is wrong? if so, then will have to redo the rfc for windows, and not windows for rfc. lol

> 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.
exactly, there may not be a router. do you know what the problem with link-local addresses is? they can be random! and often this is not what we need. besides, if everything is so good with link-local, then why do local unicast addresses exist? ;)

>> 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.
who said that need to route something somewhere? O_o