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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 10, 2012, at 11:30 PM, A. Gregory Rabil wrote:
I believe this is exactly what limits the usefulness of this option.  Why not identify the machine AND the interface?  I understand the argument that it is easier to update relay agents versus clients, but it just seems like this is incomplete solution.  I also understand the DUID/IAID and am not out to change that at all.  I would simply like add this link-layer option to identify the interface actually being configured in order to provide as much information as possible for administrative control, because experience has shown that such controls are inevitably needed.

The purpose of the draft was very simply and exclusively to tag each DHCPv6 packet with the link-layer address of the interface on which the packet was originally sent.   This is a very simple, very restricted scope.   It's something that I think everyone in the working group can agree on.   It's also very easy to implement, because it can be done in the relay agent.

What you've said is very difficult for me to parse—you seem to be imputing a ton of additional protocol and semantic detail on top of something very simple.   Can you state in simple, clear terms why the first sentence in the paragraph above does not satisfy you?