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> Fri, 13 July 2012 13:09 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 D8DFC21F8810 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:09:40 -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=[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 mLIMalOCx-tJ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (zimbra.network1.net [74.115.181.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C47C21F880D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.network1.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02DC540E44; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:10:14 -0400
From: perl-list <perl-list@network1.net>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Message-ID: <798909694.32949.1342185014808.JavaMail.root@network1.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_BrKOB1OgbWdDwqHEPy5apJHZD8vpY6WE0TSA74vK43uOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_32948_133059403.1342185014807"
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@ietf.org, Marc Perea <marccp@srttel.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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:09:41 -0000

Not all downstream equipment supports Remote ID. Not all network setups have a circuit ID either. 

> Ok, if we're restricting to ISP environments, why not mandate in such
> environments that they should be using the Remote ID (RFC 4649) to
> specify the downstream "client". Note that in DOCSIS environments,
> this is already happening. (Just not in RFC 4649 form... but in an
> enterprise-specific option 17).

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