Re: [dhcwg] Question about 3315id-for-v4

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Ted - I looked back through the last call e-mail and found the specifics:

www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03389.html
www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03283.html
www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03284.html

I missed the subtleties of the discussion; others might have, too, as the
discussion was pretty brief.

Now that we see the tie-in between 3315id-for-v4 and the DHCID RR, I think
we need to get a more definitive statement about how a server users
3315id-for-v4 identifiers with the DHCID RR.  We also need to get a more
detailed evaluation of the backward-compatibility issues, if 3315id-for-v4
will require changes in server behavior (for parsing the IAID+DUID).  Are
other server vendors comfortable with the effect of 3315id-for-v4 on
currently deployed servers?

- Ralph




At 05:35 PM 4/20/2004 -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
>On Apr 20, 2004, at 8:58 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>Is there some other way in which the use of the DHCID RR can be
>>defined to avoid requiring the parsing of any client identification (either
>>DHCpv4 or DHCPv6)?
>
>No.   During the last call both Bernie and Barr expressed a wish that we 
>could do this, and we discussed and rejected a method for doing 
>this.   The problem is that the only way to make it so the server doesn't 
>have to parse the identifier is to add an additional identifier option, 
>and if we do that, clients supporting the new identifier style will not 
>interoperate with servers that do not in some cases.
>
>The only objection I can think of to the server parsing the client 
>identifier option is that we have historically said the client identifier 
>is opaque.   However, there is a good reason to break with this tradition, 
>and I don't see how doing so would create an interoperability 
>problem.   So if we try to keep this tradition, we break interoperability 
>with old servers.   If we break this tradition, we do not.   So I think we 
>have to use the IAID+DUID form of the client identifier option, and not 
>add a separate IAID option.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg