[dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046

"Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com> Tue, 14 January 2003 00:59 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00182; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:59:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E1CEJ05256; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:12:14 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0E1BxJ05222 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:11:59 -0500
Received: from chimera.incognito.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00142 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:57:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from homerdmz.incognito.com ([207.102.214.106] helo=homer.incognito.com.) by chimera.incognito.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18YFRj-0007SI-00 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:00:51 -0800
Received: by homer.incognito.com. with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZFBK19B8>; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:05:53 -0800
Message-ID: <4FB49E60CFBA724E88867317DAA3D198A678CE@homer.incognito.com.>
From: "Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:05:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2BB69.158D57E0"
Subject: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Regarding the use of the Client Identifier option to identify a specific
device:

RFC 2131, Section 4.2 suggests that a DHCP server should use the Client
Identifier supplied by the client device where possible, and to effectively
synthesize one from the client's chaddr if the client does not supply one.
(Actually, section 4.2 insists that a server uses the Client Identifier, if
supplied).

RFC 3046, Section 4.0 seems to downplay the use of the Client Identifier and
encourages the combination of RemoteID and CHADDR to distinguish a device.
If the use of a Client Identifier is discouraged, how would a device acquire
multiple IP addresses from the DHCP server, since the server is encouraged
to only use the RemoteID and CHADDR?  (Perhaps we're talking about a set-top
box that can do VoIP, and digital video.  The device may want an IP for
Voice, and a second IP for video, but only has 1 MAC address...?)