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

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