Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt-01
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 29 March 2012 12:34 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 185AA21F8AC4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Li4-RhWxEQ+W for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6086621F8ABC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2TCXxxP001553; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:34:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201203291234.q2TCXxxP001553@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:56:30 +0200. <20120329.135630.74725067.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:33:59 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt-01
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, 29 Mar 2012 12:34:02 -0000
In your previous mail you wrote: > > One notable thing that should be specified is the actual content of the > > link-layer address used by a client. I think it should be clarified that > > this is supposed to be link-layer address from the interface that was > > used to contact the server. > > Agreed. This is vital. +1 Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS: one thing which took unexpected time in the SD-NAT demo at the IETF meeting on Sunday was the fact the LL DUID of CPE boxes didn't contain the MAC address of the Ethernet uplink (the one printed on the box, or returned by ifconfig / ip addr) but the previous (value - 1) one... BTW I believe it shouldn't have been too surprising: it is one of the reasons the idea to pickup the MAC address in LL or LLT DUIDs doesn't work.
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6… sthaug
- [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-har… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6… Francis Dupont
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6… perl-list
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6… Ted Lemon