IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Tue, 10 July 2012 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jhutz@cmu.edu>
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 D6EDC11E80E6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 BV2sKv2tRWkk for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7A811E80B6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.2.193.239] (minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu [128.2.193.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q6ALq0SC025645 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:52:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <30780_1341933448_q6AFHR0X005120_07DA37D4-670E-407E-8610-4B0118541627@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> <CAL10_Bq449505mXkocWjcAkaa0uQcMrMqc0wTMZZzuBZdw-TKg@mail.gmail.com> <396DEDBA-E0DB-42FD-9076-787D50FCEE3E@nominum.com> <CAL10_BotfMtTSCpooUXhTfzhBnXoat0gOo_VjxJrjBnmKwvRPQ@mail.gmail.com> <30780_1341933448_q6AFHR0X005120_07DA37D4-670E-407E-8610-4B0118541627@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:51:59 -0400
Message-ID: <1341957119.7190.30.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>, jhutz@cmu.edu
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:51:34 -0000

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:17 +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:

> > None of the operators are currently using the IAID as an
> > identifier, so that's not a good choice.
> 
> By "identifier" here I assume you mean "machine inventory identifier,"
>  not "database key associated with assigned IP address."    If you mean
>  the latter, then you are saying that operators are using DHCPv6-like
>  servers that don't follow the protocol, which would be news to me,
>  although I suppose it's possible.

The server may use IAIDs as keys in the lease database, but I promise
you that my registration database, which contains the registration
information used to decide which clients get which fixed addresses (or
are given leases at all), contains hardware addresses.

-- Jeff

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