IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 11 July 2012 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981D011E80A2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37l8VIYvBuOx for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1D721F852C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/3dnEd9E8wZlua1UXb12yccB1BR0UVH@postini.com; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:10:05 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ED11B8313 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BDAC19005C; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:10:04 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNXf7+ZrBEJQCsAkSClbxFr7Ij65chuyaAgABMmoCAAARngIAABd6AgADzHYCAAN9HgIAABl6AgAD6h4CAABZcgA==
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:10:03 +0000
Message-ID: <49A52050-7FCA-44E8-9130-EFE3979D7FC3@nominum.com>
References: <CC2114CA.ED37%shwethab@cisco.com> <4B2C9E20-D925-4D9A-B9B8-AAE396379AB7@nominum.com> <CAAed6vvrfAwmCUKTLfOw0WaFtmpa_4d=Gct0P6a0UedaXXPUKw@mail.gmail.com> <2411883C-9E45-454E-A3B7-3D366D47FC81@nominum.com> <CAAed6vv26APkqEbHwDqC7P7PTJ+2dnfP5dxofXSS2-Exm6p+gA@mail.gmail.com> <12EEF4CE-B85C-4542-AFF5-085CDE2ACFE5@nominum.com> <CAAed6vsuiy2Dep5ZwWyyr58JCRDFYYWOGqjpyrHfUxOGop5Zqg@mail.gmail.com> <545EC59B-EEB6-44A1-9663-AC0BF6F0A412@nominum.com> <CAAed6vuEV5xc4aCqNs+wBf5dUxjmm-sgYVvgnA_mr=Hp6XRGaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAed6vuEV5xc4aCqNs+wBf5dUxjmm-sgYVvgnA_mr=Hp6XRGaw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_49A520507FCA44E89130EFE3979D7FC3nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:09:34 -0000

On Jul 11, 2012, at 2:50 PM, A. Gregory Rabil wrote:
What does not satisfy about that first sentence is that it limits the usefulness of this option because of the part that says "the interface on which the packet was originally sent".  My argument is that although this may be useful, it it not a complete solution because I would like it to identify the interface which is being configured.

Okay, great.   So, the link-layer address for the interface being configured is being attached to the packet that was sent on that interface, but somehow this doesn't satisfy your need.   Can you describe (please, one or two sentences, not several paragraphs) under what real-world circumstances this would occur?

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status