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> Tue, 10 July 2012 14:11 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 9D6E921F8762 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 v0jeKTZzbUdI for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9389621F8707 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/w4HJYew1RRIzX51iLgaHrclia+PvNP@postini.com; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:40 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 A91A41B8320 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:39 -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 A172C19005C; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:39 -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; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:11:26 -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+ZrBEJQCsAkSClbxFr7Ij65chuyaAgABMmoCAAARngIAABd6AgADzHYA=
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:11:26 +0000
Message-ID: <12EEF4CE-B85C-4542-AFF5-085CDE2ACFE5@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>
In-Reply-To: <CAAed6vv26APkqEbHwDqC7P7PTJ+2dnfP5dxofXSS2-Exm6p+gA@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_12EEF4CEB85C4542AFF5085CDE2ACFE5nominumcom_"
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:11:13 -0000

On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:41 PM, A. Gregory Rabil wrote:
I don't believe the information would be the same in the case where the client is requesting an address for a different interface (which is possible in DHCPv6, but not in DHCPv4).  That's what I was trying to explain with the rest of my post.

Why do we care?   The link layer address is not an interface identifier—it's a hint to be used by your corporate back-office inventory tracking system so that it can tell that an IPv4 address belongs to the same machine as an IPv6 address.   As long as your inventory tracking system has a list of all the interfaces on a machine, or as long as the DHCPv4 server has received a request from the same interface, the connection is made.   We are hinting at the machine's identity, not the interface's identity.

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