Bug 1232743

Summary:	dhcpv6 doesn't support hostname/domainname requests
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jaromír Cápík <jcapik>
Component:	dhcp	Assignee:	Jiri Popelka <jpopelka>
Status:	CLOSED EOL	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	23	CC:	extras-orphan, jpopelka, ovasik, psimerda, thozza
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-12-20 13:47:12 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	883152

Description Jaromír Cápík 2015-06-17 12:22:22 UTC

Hello.

Recently we had to configure IPv6-only systems and encountered a major flaw in the DHCPv6 Options. Our DHCPv6 clients did not get a hostname from the DHCPv6 server and it's apparently caused by RFC3315 that doesn't define options for hostname and domain name in case of DHCPv6. DHCPv4 define options 12 (Host Name) and 15 (Domain Name), but there are no such options in DHCPv6 and consequently the DHCPv6 clients end up with no hostname.

I consider hostname and domain name requests a valid use-case that doesn't have a suitable replacement in the IPv6 world at the moment and I believe these need to be added in the RFC and implemented so that the network admins do not need to hack hostnames with scripts started from rc.local, etc.

Please, check the specs and let me know whether that looks doable.

Thanks,
Jaromir.

Comment 1 Jaromír Cápík 2015-06-17 12:47:18 UTC

NOTE: option fqdn (RFC4704) works the opposite way - client sends hostname to server

Comment 2 Jiri Popelka 2015-06-17 12:47:58 UTC

I can implement options which are specified in a RFC, but hasn't been implemented (in ISC dhcp) yet, but I definitely can't make up my own options.

Not sure how this is supposed to work in IPv6 world.

Comment 3 Jiri Popelka 2015-06-17 12:59:03 UTC

You can ask on
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users

There's also a 'working group'
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
if you're sure this is something that needs to be described by a standard.

Comment 4 Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) 2015-06-18 05:54:09 UTC

I know it is a high priority issue for you and it is a regression when extending from IPv4 to IPv6 but I seriously doubt it fits the definition of a Fedora regression unless it already worked with IPv6.

Comment 5 Jaromír Cápík 2015-06-24 16:27:28 UTC

The regression definition is pretty vague and always depends on the environment and conditions you want to apply on the specific case. In fact I couldn't find any Fedora specific definition of regression and the BZ definition only states a "recent change", but doesn't explicitly bind it to the component version/release. In this case it's the environment that changed and therefore it formally complies to the definition.
Anyway, I don't consider the regression keyword important from the schedule perspective. It was just a formal mark, so ... it's up to you whether you delete it or not. The result is important here.

Comment 6 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 13:59:17 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle.
Changing version to '23'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23

Comment 8 Fedora End Of Life 2016-11-24 11:54:28 UTC

This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '23'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 9 Fedora End Of Life 2016-12-20 13:47:12 UTC

Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.