IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <greg.rabil@jagornet.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 9EAC021F86F4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LioBqJCbzCn2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF97821F86F1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3125309bku.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=CPJiKE2+06S63DVk3/4muAfmOJsvw/YQ/vMI9YoG8aI=; b=hR28gRyP3S5pcDDvJeb6nTi9A1DILHLvD8L2FfnvtcJaGWWsIhNj/aGZjVJSyCpT+o /azQmlj5F58NXm0AhkU9SlOyrxMn5oZR60pohTCI7eeizcEZEsBCXqRG/z+56IinUQJh L1ilSXuJBCM2BO7PPcb5nqUGdkrc7QLDAfexL3MgRoLin2i6/bZ6Y3k5TcwoRW7YJBgD DEp5G2uXQ9Zm+7+kRukuAynIqrh22pUSivnKm14nzaEdnbAm6jNGfg9vfRUGvjE4OcY3 zym5mYz9Cxh1LiVLT4qv5vf9M+4tnnFetCBjssoYxkbyVk6T3yd8luGmT7cukhQfUlLx 5Ehg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.154.28 with SMTP id m28mr4367663bkw.102.1333415133610; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.22.4 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D9B5773329187548A0189ED6503667890B9F3981@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
References: <CAAed6vsuc5AoJ-pmdu-CYLzJ4jEtSUkxYy1aLTJbkoRiEjUQ9A@mail.gmail.com> <201203300826.q2U8Qx51078004@givry.fdupont.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D478A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vv6gDkjnHO1YujFbTm=fhJVZHi_25u6=PRgTiDrO6uR4g@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4946@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vtnoi2fTEsb7kNpVXsnbh7H60mn7wUwcPMu0juVBSMCsw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4986@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vtKw40+BiK4a9KwKxZZ_fZSh3N7kjAMNeyXGUuyASwfvw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D49C0@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <D9B5773329187548A0189ED6503667890B9F3981@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:05:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vtQ85TPzuL=wAH0T688NE-FKqA2rR9oOAyiRPbRe2KvKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175d03d260820104bcbbe741"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmt6B8kvUYcbZdEHoQXUlZglQunlV4xzjDjeq5jAs/M/1iQFjGNVXK8sxS7y0Q272cDBbux
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:05:35 -0000

Hi Bernie,

> If there is a multi-homed client (such as one that has a wired and
> wireless) and you bridge these networks, you won't be able to assure
> whether the wired or wireless gets that reservation since they appear on
> the same "link" to the server, but does that really matter in this case?

Maybe, maybe not.  For example, an administrator may wish to favor
the wired interface for the reservation.  Provided requests from each
interface are sent separately, and contain the proposed link-layer-addr
for the interface on which the request is sent, then I suppose they
could configure it via the mac as they would in DHCPv4.  I do
understand why this may be a bad idea, but some admins just want
to configure things using the same tag (notice I didn't say
identifier ;-)) they are used to using.

Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email