Re: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Sun, 20 January 2002 17:59 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged))
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14232
for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:59:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA22545
for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:59:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22439;
Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:51:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176])
by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22417
for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:51:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA14106
for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:51:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com;
(5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM)
id AA01480; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:51:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:51:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Michael Johnston <frenchy@quiet-like-a-panther.org>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments
In-Reply-To: <20020120024218.5918.qmail@quiet-like-a-panther.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020120124657.5857A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Infiniband spec uses 128 bit global UIDs too. I think it makes sense to have a 128bit option but keep the 64bit too. If we can just add it as another option which I think we can. But we don't want to hold up the spec either. /jim On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Michael Johnston wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments Michael Johnston
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments Bernie Volz (EUD)
- [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments Michael Johnston
- Re: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/com… Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/com… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments Michael Johnston
- RE: [dhcwg] Re: dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/com… Jim Bound