IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 C207B11E809B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 oNmH5XeUytxo for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E6411E80F0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14500; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342209588; x=1343419188; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=94ZNNe0oWnF2HcFyzhqrWY3XIE/u5znOP3XCfoIlgns=; b=FyJNmtVY05Win+OCvitT8nJzU2iQkKAObPywZNke4rYSQ1fqb5HAYJaT cuvTEjKB+lrqvAeBw9H0HWt5O5uXs2gvqVavsRlwEKn7ZNC2kGI0vsB4w jo6aGT4koKw6s8BRe2+5o6DBGYgSarf9ooiHYzIZRdnFhVrefb0W5UTs1 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAOJ9AFCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFDoI8tVOBB4IgAQEBBBIBGkwQAgEIEQQBAQsdBzIUCQgCBAENBQgah2ubYaAkizyFFmADo1qBZoImOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,580,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="98738042"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2012 19:59:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DJxmBO002164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:59:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.177]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:59:47 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "Eustace, Glen" <G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNYGwvZrBEJQCsAkSClbxFr7Ij65cnoa7w
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:59:47 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E022DE9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <BEF0160F-9A8C-4DF3-94FC-9F69BFB09CAF@nominum.com> <CC2589A3.ADDF%G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <CC2589A3.ADDF%G.Eustace@massey.ac.nz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.196]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19038.001
x-tm-as-result: No--35.589000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E022DE9xmbrcdx04ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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 19:59:14 -0000

You might repeat this test using the IPv6 source address of the client or Relay's (closest to client) peer-address field to extract the IPv6 address, which if a link-local, should contain the EUI-64 identifier which you can turn back into a mac-address.

I suspect that this technique will be a much more reliable indication of the current interface's mac-address.

Note: I am not suggesting that we not do this draft because of the above.


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eustace, Glen
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

As one of these IT departments, I thought that some empirical data might be useful.

We have now got ISC dhcpd running on our main campus and I have just completed adding native IPv6 to the majority of networks.  We do NOT yet have DUIDs stored in our databases but do have the MAC address for the primary NIC for all University owned equipment.

I have the  hardware-ethernet included in each host declaration for both IPv4 and IPv6.  Using the ISC fudge of deconstructing the type 1 DUID, we have 1224 matches out of 1693 active leases.  Whilst not perfect, it is actually better than I expected and for us does add value.

I have not yet attempted to determine why we failed to match the remaining leases, could be a number of reasons

  1.  Private equipment for which we do not have a MAC in the DB
  2.  The DUID generated used a MAC we don't have in the DB
  3.  The MAC we have is wrong.
  4.  etc
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Glen Eustace, Infrastructure Development Engineer (BC/DR)
Information Technology Service, Massey University PN460
Tennent Drive, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Ph: +64-6-3569099 x 81005, Fax: +64-6-3505607, Mob: +64-27-4500321

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