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

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <> Sun, 20 January 2002 00:16 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24089 for <>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:16:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA21301 for; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:16:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA21235; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:07:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA21212 for <>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:07:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24028 for <>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:07:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0K06cS10254 for <>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:06:38 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0K06cf20738 for <>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:06:38 -0600 (CST)
Received: FROM BY ; Sat Jan 19 18:06:37 2002 -0600
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZQBK5Q7H>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:06:37 -0600
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDC5@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>
To: "'Michael Johnston'" <>, dhcwg <>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:06:37 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1A146.54313C20"
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>


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 []
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:00 PM
To: dhcwg
Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-22 DUID/VUID questions/comments


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? 


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. 


dhcwg mailing list