Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 C220421F86BE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EymytQCYuFz7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FA921F86BB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) with ESMTP id e274e305.2aaaec439940.957396.00-583.2666839.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:45:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 503e472e2dedfda7-df3d80ffd3f58374af4103c8d1cfaada3dd785dd
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id b274e305.0.957383.00-277.2666786.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:45:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 503e472c7377904b-0ad47f5681e35d8600f1d74d54e0618b01c0c84f
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7TGjUDu008961; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:45:31 -0400
Received: from sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (sflint03.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.230]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7TGjLWk008884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:45:26 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUB9D.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub9d.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.36.90]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:45:08 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.71]) by GAALPA1MSGHUB9D.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.90]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:45:08 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNhT5EiI+5/y90ykuhIHu+/3QPD5dwgcIAgACi1QD//9qJsA==
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:45:07 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.175.102]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <bs7652@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=FsSYsVXGSqEA:10 a=QS7FF5Nt4JQA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MwPsRqSNKFcA:1]
X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a=mYPrF8hoAAAA:8 a=l0U4ng9]
X-AnalysisOut: [AP9zcZbsDY-oA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10]
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:45:34 -0000

> Regarding DUIDs, what I do wonder about is DUID-EN.  How many devices out there actually use it 
> (I have not encountered any as yet), and if they do, how variable are the first 10-12 bytes of the data 
> that the vendor is choosing?   We could still skip the DUID type, but the enterprise ID will stil have some
> variability across the entire population (I suppose unless the DHCP servers are deployed in an entirely homogenous network).

Broadband Forum requires use of DUID-EN for "Residential Gateways" that wish to meet its TR-124 specification.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-124_Issue-3.pdf
Barbara