IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

"Eustace, Glen" <G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz> Sun, 15 July 2012 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>
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 D7C6F21F852D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YiNXcuyG17zU for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mu-mail2.massey.ac.nz (mu-mail2.massey.ac.nz [130.123.129.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A61A21F844C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tur-mm4.massey.ac.nz (tur-mm4.massey.ac.nz [130.123.96.132]) by mu-mail2.massey.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3C586A5E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:45:47 +1200 (NZST)
Received: from tur-exch-cas2.massey.ac.nz (Not Verified[10.100.189.3]) by tur-mm4.massey.ac.nz with MailMarshal id <B50032bfb0000>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:45:47 +1200
Received: from TUR-EXCH-NODE2.massey.ac.nz ([fe80::6d90:b430:e061:20ed]) by tur-exch-cas2.massey.ac.nz ([fe80::1868:bfeb:eb89:2%13]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:45:02 +1200
From: "Eustace, Glen" <G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNYGwvIo7YZHxtLUu8zFI5r0fWlJcmZs0AgARtwQA=
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:45:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CC298347.AE7B%G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <1845045610.32919.1342184828721.JavaMail.root@network1.net>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
x-originating-ip: [10.100.189.3]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC298347AE7BGEustacemasseyacnz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:45:09 -0000

> Some equipment doesn't use any mac at all to generate the DUID which is perfectly acceptable in the related RFC.
> If the DUID always used the mac, then we wouldn't need this draft at all.

Correct but in an Enterprise environment like ours, the majority of clients do. I haven't seen any that don't yet.  I just thought it might be interesting to see in how many cases the MAC used for IPv4 actually was successful in identifying the client (for back office purposes)

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status