IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

perl-list <perl-list@network1.net> Thu, 12 July 2012 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dankney@network1.net>
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 A538811E80D3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 hpomyk+j1jo6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (zimbra.network1.net [74.115.181.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58A911E80D1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.network1.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D775410F4; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:18:12 -0400
From: perl-list <perl-list@network1.net>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Message-ID: <459368309.31749.1342117092540.JavaMail.root@network1.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_BrTxVVr-d8yOMq+P6Us+xJNwZdmoFrXpZJvbRGD0V_dow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_31748_1862065720.1342117092539"
X-Originating-IP: [74.115.182.5]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0_GA_2669 (ZimbraWebClient - GC20 (Mac)/7.2.0_GA_2669)
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:17:40 -0000

Its ok tho - in an ISP situation - you want to associate leases to a customer - you may or may not care how many of them you have. What you do care about is you know who they belong to. 
----- Original Message -----

> From: "Andre Kostur" <akostur@incognito.com>
> To: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
> Cc: "perl-list" <perl-list@network1.net>, "A. Gregory Rabil"
> <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:39:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Andre Kostur wrote:
> >
> >> Changing gears for a second... if the point behind this draft is
> >> to
> >> correlate DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 leases, is the MAC address sufficient?
> >> Consider the case of any device using the DHCPv4 client identifier
> >> to
> >> distinguish between multiple leases on the same computer.
> >
> > This shouldn't be a problem, because even if the client sends a
> > client-identifier, it still has to send chaddr.

> Yes, you'll likely have a chaddr, but you no longer know which DHCPv4
> lease that the DHCPv6 transaction corresponds to. You may have dozens
> of DHCPv4 leases, all with the same CHADDR.

> --
> Andre Kostur

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