Thomas Schäfer <tschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Am Montag, 13. Februar 2012, 18:15:05 wrote Marcel Holtmann: > >> Using DHCP is just pointless. And ip is an existing configuration tool. >> Running DHCP is just being lazy. On Linux we do not need that. > > I see no contradiction between "raw IP" and using dhcp ; dhcp-pakets still > have an IP-Header as well UDP-Headers. > > dhpcp6 are IPv6-pakets with UDP and Router Advertisements are IPv6-pakets with > ICMPv6 inside. Yes, neither of these need the L2 header for anything. And I have verified that the modem answers DHCP requests in raw IP mode just fine. But Marcel has a point that the DHCP configuration of such p-t-p devices is an ugly hack. However, I believe we are so used to it that there really is no point fighting it. FWIW, I've been fighting a similar fight in my daytime ISP job for years - for some reason people want DHCP configured IPoE instead of PPPoE on DSL. It's a lost case. Doesn't matter that they have to reinvent sessions, Framed-Route's and the other stuff you get for free with PPP. > The only question for me is: > dhcp4/6 or RAs must be answered/generated by the modem or far away by the > ISP? All this comes from the modem. I don't know if it supports DHCPv6. Would surprise me a bit. But that wouldn't be the first surprise I had here, so who knows... > A further question for me is. What means "raw IP" - IPv4, or IPv6 or both? Both. I cannot test IPv6 as I don't have access to any mobile network with IPv6, but there shouldn't be any other difference than the ethertype you need to set on the received packets. Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
