[dhcwg] (no subject)

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:11 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 6157721E8092 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.214
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, 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 IE0SoqiNeUTv for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:16 -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 EA0DA21E80E4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2221482bku.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=TYiU0mjko6X4Q6rfRfXVI/5E8j99pkq4Iot4M+4u5xM=; b=X4AiLNmKl+2gQzhkW8fdTiwgSiYeqYC3XObjIlxKb0cSNQXhqQAbNke39SWlzQqpty xydaOoW2Ow4Wi12CorBxpCkOFvuNaLP4bvUhOSjy0wmJsHmAA9ZX6JLjioBxNxpvLUl7 jLnoWqH4KWj/8L0HbTWU+Bhd3Pu9NTefoxNvFZYs4Y5tB6PubUjS9oZ0iGlLwGlVqyYe JvHqJnJ9vtjLVg+xUpOHLqm7pIZRXBCAJK851GkG9HRDNYwlpSEFvgYk1r9OI0w8AIJe KnqsyptuLzkJT6cUzmTn0j9r6oYx9AYEmjqpkakaH9x6JzGbCe4Kg+38FXAUVnP3PZCa reRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.156.2 with SMTP id u2mr14003534bkw.101.1333030271911; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.42.3 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:11:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vvjfpQaQieO02dH_Kb5QnQHKLG4AWsAf8nvC+VXSAcj3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cd44ad5081704bc624b85
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIKLZeh/itYcNTEdD+vdY3qSJAoJ+mTtfnUEAyzHm5h/Z7Kj5QGhfQJi+fSotKqPOlKkLQ
Subject: [dhcwg] (no subject)
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:11:17 -0000

Hello DHC WG,
I am looking for clarification around the IAID.  Some of this stems from
the several discussions recently regarding the DUID and the lack of a MAC
address in DHCPv6.

Ted (don't mean to call you out here, but it is prevalent to my question)
wrote this on the ISC DHCP list:

>DUID+IAID uniquely identifies the interface; DUID uniquely identifies the
host.

My question is can this be guaranteed?  From RFC 3315:

      Identity association (IA) A collection of addresses assigned to
                                a client.  Each IA has an associated
                                IAID.  A client may have more than one
                                IA assigned to it; for example, one for
                                each of its interfaces.

It states "for example, one for each of its interfaces".  So, I don't see
this as a MUST, or am I missing something?

If the IAID is intended to identify the interface, then I wonder why that
is not just the MAC address.  If that were the case, then every request
would contain the DUID identifying the device, and the IAID to identify the
actual interface in which the request was made.  I guess my concern is that
if we start putting the MAC address in the DHCPv6 packet (which I am in
favor of), then we should be sure to specify how it does or does not relate
to the IAID.

Regards,

Greg Rabil