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> Thu, 12 July 2012 19:49 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 EF05411E809B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, 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 fGPUd6i6FnQi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149AC11E80CD for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/8qbqePGh9t+D3B3C/v4L28FJN6EHAD@postini.com; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:50:07 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 467D91B82AF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:50:06 -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 3C3E719005C; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:50:06 -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; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:50:00 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNYGY2oSSsG0sHhEuKqNLO98w5gJcmg5WA
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:49:59 +0000
Message-ID: <BEF0160F-9A8C-4DF3-94FC-9F69BFB09CAF@nominum.com>
References: <mailman.1109.1342111122.3330.dhcwg@ietf.org> <4FFEDF70.39E4.004A.0@srttel.com> <CAL10_BrKOB1OgbWdDwqHEPy5apJHZD8vpY6WE0TSA74vK43uOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_BrKOB1OgbWdDwqHEPy5apJHZD8vpY6WE0TSA74vK43uOw@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_BEF0160F9A8C4DF394FC9F69BFB09CAFnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Marc Perea <marccp@srttel.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: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:49:34 -0000

On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Andre Kostur wrote:
Ok, if we're restricting to ISP environments, why not mandate in such
environments that they should be using the Remote ID (RFC 4649) to
specify the downstream "client".  Note that in DOCSIS environments,
this is already happening.  (Just not in RFC 4649 form... but in an
enterprise-specific option 17).

It's my understanding that the main motivator for this draft is use in corporate IT departments that inventory machines by MAC address.   I guess it would also be useful for ISPs, but that's certainly not the use case that I've heard mentioned most.

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