IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <greg.rabil@jagornet.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 7A32E21F8628 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nmSF+WNvXKwb for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A3F21F861D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so907438bku.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:x-gm-message-state:content-type; bh=nPeOFfrhfV2tC18lPlIAIsNukbU3C0FVdYUNvn1Eurg=; b=p4nvgAADdmGNqHlJbNJGDSSKPFHHCwC+6hoYCW6RHBSFeP7Ii4FYRh3UhKRiGrG1hJ B3OsBD8d06eqKr+nIhPDdNGna7DlHishNE5g+KS+fe9fV3ZmF7bEgHh3l5wgTtCSP8Jc iyGfPMxNrrujcGG3jixAzXeSNhhApZCOA73OSaNFd75bGcBH22qthnSaVcZlzBHVEvIE SH3NtpT2dAiJvAEHne3EfV8A+iUFISS855vOw3+uzXQXMivWNVGYVxqE8mGaAMg9Pjsv xA/b6nE5X5b9eetCe1/8HqVaXmG7OB7eLITf1FyDme5OXQC51U2dSUPSgA6GGqSWmgCW 4f4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.137.15 with SMTP id im15mr1399825bkc.54.1333132367537; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.22.4 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D49C0@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAAed6vsuc5AoJ-pmdu-CYLzJ4jEtSUkxYy1aLTJbkoRiEjUQ9A@mail.gmail.com> <201203300826.q2U8Qx51078004@givry.fdupont.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D478A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vv6gDkjnHO1YujFbTm=fhJVZHi_25u6=PRgTiDrO6uR4g@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4946@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vtnoi2fTEsb7kNpVXsnbh7H60mn7wUwcPMu0juVBSMCsw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4986@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vtKw40+BiK4a9KwKxZZ_fZSh3N7kjAMNeyXGUuyASwfvw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D49C0@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:32:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vtD+KKqLRzJdEF9ymtGM0VtXcz6-Htqdu1wgb-jerVo_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlN1K7Bx+L0nJcx5ceRYL4p7XTWkLhErJNL8Xicn8wvOXfu1RNgknnKHox0HdRLT0vw1rDl
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0ce0f68e34a59b04bc7a1126"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:32:54 -0000

I was considering the case where an administrator wants to configure it on
DHCP server ahead of time.  So, where they might know the MAC (because it
was printed somewhere) of both interfaces, they probably don't know the
IAIDs the device may choose for those interfaces, nor which IAID may
correspond to which interface.  I totally agree with you that from protocol
standpoint, we have all that is needed to uniquely identify things
(DUID+IAID+IA_type).  From an administrative standpoint, however, I believe
they need DUID+MAC to configure a truly unique static binding, because as
you and others have pointed out, the MAC is not unique.

Greg

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> > If I want to assign a specific address to the wired interface and a
> separate, specific address to the wireless interface, how do I know what
> the IAID will be for each of them?
>
> You find out when you get a DHCP packet from each interface, and each
> packet contains a DUID+IAID, and also contains the hardware address
> (assuming that you already know which hardware address corresponds to which
> interface).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email