[Dnsmasq-discuss] Cannot assign IPv6 address for /96 subnet

[Sheng Yang]

Interesting, the newer version seems no longer allow such line in the
configuration file?

dhcp-range=fc00:3:1602::7473,96,static

dnsmasq keeps complaining about bad dhcp-range, for version 2.66test21.

Use the 2.62 is fine(though different cidr not working for dhcp-host).

--Sheng

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
> On 07/03/13 22:38, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Any chance you can reproduce it?
>>
>> If dhcp-range can accept a prefix rather than 64 then hand it out, I
>> think dhcp-host should also able to do so...
>
>
> I just tested 2.66test21, and it worked fine for me. I didn't test earlier
> code.
>
> I've re-written huge chunks of relevant code for test21, without actually
> looking at this problem. So either I've not got the same conditions as you
> and the bug is still there, or I've done a better job this time round as
> fixed the bug without doing so explicitly.
>
>
> Please could you give 2.66test21 a go with you config, and see how you get
> on?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Simon Kelley<simon at thekelleys.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/02/13 02:16, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>
>>>> Did you use dhcphost option? dhcp-range works for me(if I specify a
>>>> range), but not with dhcp-host option(when I specify dhcp-range as
>>>> static).
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, no, I didn't. I should have read back through the thread. I'll check
>>> again, but it rather looks like this is non possible, by design,  (or
>>> miss-design)
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Sheng
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Simon Kelley<simon at thekelleys.org.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I did some testing. I configured an server interface with
>>>>> prefix-length
>>>>> 96, and configured dnsmasq with a dhcp-range and 96 prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using dhclient, I got a lease successfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only problem is that dhclient configured the client's interface
>>>>> with
>>>>> prefix-length 64.
>>>>>
>>>>> I moment's thought shows that this is expected: there is nowhere in the
>>>>> DHCPv6 messages for the prefix-length information to be passed to the
>>>>> client. There _is_ a prefix-length field in router-advertisements. but
>>>>> AFAIK, there's no way for the DHCPv6 client to use that information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course if you're using RA for address-allocation, using SLAAC, the
>>>>> prefix
>>>>> length has to be 64 anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone knows better, or can explain how the standard(s) are supposed
>>>>> to
>>>>> work, please enlighten me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>