From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Packham Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:44:39 +1300 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Initial IPv6 support In-Reply-To: <20130118104412.A93EF20060A@gemini.denx.de> References: <1358472932-32083-1-git-send-email-judge.packham@gmail.com> <20130118092041.0c827374@lilith> <50F91851.5050003@gmail.com> <20130118104412.A93EF20060A@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <50FBBC87.7050508@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 01/18/2013 11:44 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Chris, > > In message <50F91851.5050003@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> Good question. Basically we have some out of tree code that implements a >> basic IPv6 stack. I'm drip feeding the code in pieces to avoid just >> dumping it on people and because the current code wouldn't meet u-boot's >> standards. > > Can you please go into abit more detail which exact services this > implements, and how? TFTP over IPv6 as well as PING6. Our use case is just static address configuration but using link-local addresses should be doable. I was thinking it wouldn't be to hard to implement something to generate a global IPv6 address based on the eui-64 of the device. > Last time I checked (about 2 years ago) there was no officially > agreed-on standard for example how network booting should be done in > IPv6. > > There used to be a document how TFTP could handle IPv6 addresses at > http://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-evans-tftp-address-options/comment/50586/ > but this apears to be gone now. The proposal was rejected by then, > and the comments ("I do recommend the transition to a better > transport protocol.") sounded as if the IETF would like to abandon > TFTp under IPv6. For TFTP it's just a matter of which addresses the server binds to, and whether the CLI accepts IPv6 addresses. I think we had a patch for tftp-hpa floating around which was only a few lines. I'm not sure it's even needed these days. > I found links for DHCPv6, for example > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-00 > but no read standard for a bootstrap protocol. Some documents > indicated it might be based on iSCSI - but that would be quite > complex; see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4173 > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/dhc-12.pdf DHCPv6 has come along way. At least in terms of address assignment and interop with other IPv6 auto-configuration mechanisms. I'm not sure about the bootstrap side of things though. > So what exactly are you targeting for? A fairly narrow use-case initially - TFTP with a statically configured IPv6 address. At $dayjob we have just added DHCPv6 to our Linux based switches (based on ISC dhcpd). I wasn't personally involved but it's something we might be able to help with if there was demand. >> Putting my IPv6 promoter hat on I hope that it won't stay dead for long :) > > Thanks, appreciated! > >> Personally I'm happy to have a long running series and periodically send >> updates to the list. I have a repository on github[1] which has an ipv6 >> branch collecting my changes if anyone wants to pull it down for their >> own testing. If we want to apply some of the simple stuff early that's >> fine by me. > > I see no problem with handling this as a branch (for example in the > u-boot-net or u-boot-testing repositories). This should probably be > decided by Joe Hershberger, though. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk >