Re: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 15 January 2003 05:57 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 AAA23284; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:57:27 -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 h0F651J02267; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 01:05:01 -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 h0F63dJ02219 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 01:03:39 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23191 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:48:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nominum.com (cs6625147-195.austin.rr.com [66.25.147.195]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.6/8.6.11) with ESMTP id h0F5mrP10385; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:48:53 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:51:56 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Cc: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: "Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FB49E60CFBA724E88867317DAA3D198A678DA@homer.incognito.com.>
Message-Id: <74DA3B26-284D-11D7-A3B4-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The remote ID is part of the relay agent information option, which is sent by the *relay agent*, not by the client. The client *never* sends the relay agent information option, and thus *never* sends a remote ID. So if you are trying to identify the client, you absolutely *cannot* use the remote ID to do it, because it didn't come from the client. When RFC3046 talks about using the remote ID to identify a device, it is not talking about the DHCP client - it is talking about the DHCP relay agent. The two RFCs are talking about different things, and thus are not at all in conflict. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Kostur, Andre
- Re: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Kostur, Andre
- Re: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Kostur, Andre
- Re: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] Clarification on RFC 2131 and RFC 3046 Kostur, Andre