>> If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that a Homenet router SHOULD
>> implement stateless DHCPv6. That seems like a somewhat arbitrary
>> requirement -- could you please explain the rationale?
> I think we discussed this already:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ho
>
>> The problem is we can't rely on it since it is not widely supported by
>> clients.
> Chicken and egg. If you put it in hnetd, the clients will come.
Well, the thing is. Homenet is not really chartered for host changes and
many believe that IPv4 support is sort of deprecated anyway.
> Yes th
>> I might experiment with working around some of these issues by using RFC
>> 3203 and RFC 6704 (forcerenew with nonce authentication, which is
>> reportedly implemented by dhcpcd). If you have experience with this
>> subprotocol, please drop me a note.
> The problem is we can't rely on it since
Hi Juliusz,
as always, thanks for your comments.
> I might experiment with working around some of these issues by using RFC
> 3203 and RFC 6704 (forcerenew with nonce authentication, which is
> reportedly implemented by dhcpcd). If you have experience with this
> subprotocol, please drop me a n
I think that I've finished implementing most of the DHCPv4 bits in shncpd,
and it was hard work. Requested changes to the draft are at the end. In
the following, I write RA for Router Advertisement and RP for Routing
Protocol. (I'd write Babel, but then somebody would get annoyed, and
I don't li
