Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cerowrt-next plans

[Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>]

Sorry for the extremely late reply (it's been over a month!), but I'm
only slowly recovering from a massive mail backlog.

>>> it occurs to me that AHCP might be a better choice than the
>>> alternatives for use in Amateur Radio internet environments with IPv6.

>> Why do you need IPV6 for HAM use

> Two reasons come to mind - I'm sure there are more.

Another reason is that a number of things are much easier to implement
in IPv6.  This is especially true of link-local stuff, which is highly
non-portable in IPv4, and quite reasonable in IPv4.

That's the main reason why I never bothered defining AHCP over IPv4 --
the current implementation of AHCP is almost completely portable POSIX
code, while a typical DHCPv4 implementation needs to manually craft IP
packets and push them through a raw socket.  (The Babel protocol is
defined over both IPv4 and IPv6, has it's only ever been implemented
over link-local IPv6.  Note that that it can advertise IPv4 routes, it
just happens to carry them over IPv6.)

In short -- IPv6 helps keeping the developers sane.  And that's
hopefully worth a few wasted bits here and there.

-- Juliusz