Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

On 27/05/15 20:16, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I don't believe I saw an answer to the question above. What is the
>> answer? (I think that is the key thing in figuring out how to
>> handle the discuss btw.)
> 
> The base protocol specification uses either the client identifier
> option or the client MAC address as an identifier.   This document is
> requiring the use of the client identifier option, and excludes the
> use of the MAC address, which potentially increases user privacy in
> the event that the DHCP privacy profile is used.   If the
> specification allowed the client to use its MAC address alone as an
> identifier, this would not be possible.
> 
> However, I think the actual reason that the client identifier is
> being required here is that the specific interface that is being
> configured on the client is not a hardware interface--it's a virtual
> point-to-point link, which has no hardware address, and thus the
> client identifier is the only possible identifier to use.

But isn't the PSID here exactly the idenfier needed (plus the address
where one's been allocated)?

S.

> 
> The client identifier or MAC address is used as a database key by the
> DHCP server to track resources allocated to the client: in this case
> the A+P port set.   Without such a key, there would be no way to
> renew the client's lease on that particular A+P port set, and so TCP
> connections would be broken each time the client's lease expired.
>