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