RE: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Mon, 21 January 2002 01:23 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18246 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:23:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA03671 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:24:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA03459; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:16:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA03431 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:16:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA18149 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:15:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA01918; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:15:53 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:15:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: Michael Johnston <frenchy@quiet-like-a-panther.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDC7@EAMBUNT705>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020120201533.12067A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Bernie,

This is a good idea I think.


/jim


On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

> What about considering a variable length field for this type and adding a 16-bit length to allow the length to be specified? That way, a vendor can use what they like. The server treats it as opaque anyway.
> 
> So, in 11.3 we could change it to be:
> 
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |       VUID length (in bits)   |     VUID (variable length)    |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    .                                                               .
>    .                    VUID (variable length)                     |
>    .                                                               .
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    .                                                               .
>    .                  domain name (variable length)                .
>    .                                                               .
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> VUID length is the number of bits of the VUID.
> 
> VUID is the VUID (of (VUID length + 7)/8 bytes).
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bound [mailto:seamus@bit-net.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 12:52 PM
> To: Michael Johnston
> Cc: Bernie Volz (EUD); dhcwg
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments
> 
> 
> Infiniband spec uses 128 bit global UIDs too.  I think it makes sense to
> have a 128bit option but keep the 64bit too.   If we can just add it as
> another option which I think we can.  But we don't want to hold up the
> spec either.
> 
> 
> /jim
> 
> 
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Michael Johnston wrote:
> 
> > Bernie,
> > 
> > Intel-ish systems are what I use the most, so my information is skewed in 
> > that direction. 
> > 
> > The UUIDs being used today are derived from the algorithm in this document:
> > http://www.opengroup.org/dce/info/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt 
> > 
> > Mechanisms for retrieving (and in many cases storing) the platform UUID from 
> > (to) non-volatile storage are included in (or with) most x86PC compatible 
> > laptop and desktop systems and all Intel Itanium workstations and servers. 
> > 
> > In order to get Microsoft WHQL or Intel WfM certification all systems with 
> > network boot support must contain or generate a valid platform UUID. 
> > 
> > EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) also requires a platform UUID. 
> > 
> > 
> > %%michael 
> > 
> > 
> > Bernie Volz (EUD) writes: 
> > 
> > > Hi: 
> > > 
> > > If there is good evidence that a 128-bit identifier makes much more sense than using the 64-bit identifier currently defined for type 2 (section 11.3), perhaps we should just use the 128-bits (a vendor that only has 64-bit identifier, could simply use 0's in the rest of the bits). 
> > > 
> > > Do you or does anyone else have some good information about the what new systems are using for UUIDs? 
> > > 
> > > - Bernie Volz 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Johnston [mailto:frenchy@quiet-like-a-panther.org]
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:00 PM
> > > To: dhcwg
> > > Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Gentles, 
> > > 
> > > For the DUID contents definition (Section 11):  
> > > 
> > > Would you be adverse to expanding the size of the VUID to 128 bits or 
> > > creating an additional type (4) for a 128 bit UUID?  
> > > 
> > > Reasoning:  
> > > 
> > > According to the dhcpv6-22 draft, "... the DUID used by a client SHOULD NOT 
> > > change over time...".  From what I have seen, most new laptops, desktops & 
> > > workstations (especially those that come with network installed) already 
> > > contain, or have space reserved for, a 128 bit UUID that is intended to be 
> > > used to manage/track the system identity.  Why have a vendor or IT assign 
> > > yet another ID number to the system.  
> > > 
> > > Using the link-layer address is also not a unique solution.  Consider the 
> > > two cases of (1) laptops connecting to docking stations that contain network 
> > > adapters and (2) replacing defective or upgrading to new network adapters.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > %%michael  
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dhcwg mailing list
> > > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >  
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> > 
> 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg