Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis question: Changing default DUID to DUID-LL?

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
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 F116712DB5C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONhsceV7hPHc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD58112D59F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x232.google.com with SMTP id fh2so2228925igd.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9gwRPg+P5fpQmHH/DX1VjpBUCwYbtacpLJyFxA9GNc0=; b=G6DDBVmODoNZ0rLaZpWQTF+0+ZC6Q7RrRbiUtAxu2rjhBjjYXz/jHQIzOxv6OI1crH T3LlCUbmxBO9PhTVqucuK5dDmPzbG0OpOhCfdqCEbNcVyYW4oDAwcceXcGpIo31PQzj1 z8a97046yvpwfvGHKINN4LFA4x6fMo2UsQkQM2ZbpR7JBbpBu9R2x+YPdO0AubCqf5IG iW4Mf5mICB9IM9tEKukEkiwfkSjrsHvN4YE3JihOuOAOb3REvOJw4b/fwi0jT2Uk7XC1 /g/1XlpeIVTfZq+PEeUweaoE1BYHOzPYHeW738b2VxdZhLPa1oNmrqhv8plArFExK5OK 3onQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9gwRPg+P5fpQmHH/DX1VjpBUCwYbtacpLJyFxA9GNc0=; b=FhHnNYdzRRQs/GqT2TUe15wctEg+KLx/CCg726k4oUTbgxD5K8uL4GnzDepLwxV1a5 P/4JQdRtKsPXfAjHcbEgbqWkfLt23VrH/SJ5QG1+2yx4kTy5KMrqWCSwKZF620UcxBRW SPxqdz9Fi/VA2TAc07aHS2EeVx8+U03oiPeDSYUS/j4vzIedRn+CNISARe08Y7qgMweO HzkRqebGJ6kip5RjZTY6Ct4jFqsHLlC3Mm5SZVC1Ac0URmu4TU6XpXVPtQIKqugJTmen RkK7P6gc2SXx0SiMA3pwThOA13/8hks25dHVVycTjIHho5vux1I60bXZJ3hnX/1F+MXd Uduw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVMhAXba+lmZ6jmvd+U+TNQBmyOb4l834xBKV44d3jromkUaESGRbXwls5uC7ZDZkw/1DaiYL1mwYb/Bu+f
X-Received: by 10.50.244.180 with SMTP id xh20mr14380820igc.48.1464048582902; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.57.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=Zc-nfHX6F0EMDpnJ178+RUHV8cZRqBk6JRfSZPwjLYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <574093A8.5040300@gmail.com> <574361A4.9040907@gmail.com> <1914325.ChlqIaE1GT@uberpc.marples.name> <CAPt1N1=Zc-nfHX6F0EMDpnJ178+RUHV8cZRqBk6JRfSZPwjLYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:09:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrk0KurGJaNx_T2A6ACj9Eio5RDKdzATdvK8JGx6yd0hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/QYkwb66g62p3xrvzjwk0up1xvSc>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis question: Changing default DUID to DUID-LL?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 24 May 2016 00:09:45 -0000

>> It could also be edited for big orgs to use a Vendor-assigned unique ID
>> based
>> on Enterprise Number, which I'm pretty sure satisfied the provisioning
>> case.
>
>
> I've never actually heard of anyone doing this, although I agree that you
> are correct in theory.   :)

But might this solve your use case?  If the vendor got an enterprise
number and each device was flashed with a unique DUID-EN that was also
printed on the box...?