[dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments

Bernie,

Intel-ish systems are what I use the most, so my information is skewed in 
that direction. 

The UUIDs being used today are derived from the algorithm in this document:
http://www.opengroup.org/dce/info/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt 

Mechanisms for retrieving (and in many cases storing) the platform UUID from 
(to) non-volatile storage are included in (or with) most x86PC compatible 
laptop and desktop systems and all Intel Itanium workstations and servers. 

In order to get Microsoft WHQL or Intel WfM certification all systems with 
network boot support must contain or generate a valid platform UUID. 

EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) also requires a platform UUID. 

%%michael 

Bernie Volz (EUD) writes: 

> Hi: 
> 
> If there is good evidence that a 128-bit identifier makes much more sense than using the 64-bit identifier currently defined for type 2 (section 11.3), perhaps we should just use the 128-bits (a vendor that only has 64-bit identifier, could simply use 0's in the rest of the bits). 
> 
> Do you or does anyone else have some good information about the what new systems are using for UUIDs? 
> 
> - Bernie Volz 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Johnston [mailto:frenchy@quiet-like-a-panther.org]
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:00 PM
> To: dhcwg
> Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments 
> 
> 
> Gentles, 
> 
> For the DUID contents definition (Section 11):  
> 
> Would you be adverse to expanding the size of the VUID to 128 bits or 
> creating an additional type (4) for a 128 bit UUID?  
> 
> Reasoning:  
> 
> According to the dhcpv6-22 draft, "... the DUID used by a client SHOULD NOT 
> change over time...".  From what I have seen, most new laptops, desktops & 
> workstations (especially those that come with network installed) already 
> contain, or have space reserved for, a 128 bit UUID that is intended to be 
> used to manage/track the system identity.  Why have a vendor or IT assign 
> yet another ID number to the system.  
> 
> Using the link-layer address is also not a unique solution.  Consider the 
> two cases of (1) laptops connecting to docking stations that contain network 
> adapters and (2) replacing defective or upgrading to new network adapters.  
> 
> 
> %%michael  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg