Re: [dhcwg] (no subject)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 16:37 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 9C9CF21F84F7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 z9TiuWZsxFHe for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AE821F84FB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=5979; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333039039; x=1334248639; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=Xu5rsBVVIs05DpkKmL3yDGi307MZ+NG1KGYEvhw4n2o=; b=Og/MYvAZ0T4aVLeZf7fKtW9z3EVyu7+ay2xO49OUP0Mf2QrCs6pKyVrb vpnTsphXBIKN1Y34FiK/LXM2yBWCMJH1/GdAwZXXigOrZyEC1G4NqXZNw 8/0HVM4c5uvB65MxJe0o0e0hMB0WOxE8EnlSRa4szmjC51dzajOgiHF6k 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEJAFmPdE+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbAA7AQmCRoJ9s04CgQeCCQEBAQMBAQEBDwEQSwsFCwIBCA4KKgICJzABAQQRAiKHYwULnAiNCJIdBIpzAYUTNWMEiCWNPI5GgWiDAyI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,669,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="70502269"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2012 16:37:19 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2TGbJTa022317; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:37:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:37:18 -0500
Received: from 72.163.62.136 ([72.163.62.136]) by XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:37:18 +0000
References: <CAAed6vvjfpQaQieO02dH_Kb5QnQHKLG4AWsAf8nvC+VXSAcj3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL10_Bou4LoC-3zDBn4M57FOwnMpakA5m8qwsr2gUHsJQsLr-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] (no subject)
Thread-Index: Ac0NyjSyhwmjkWNwSIK8XmUFx3iwGQ==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-28E4F5CC-BEC8-4ED8-9967-446E3A40D291"; charset="iso-8859-1"
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_Bou4LoC-3zDBn4M57FOwnMpakA5m8qwsr2gUHsJQsLr-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <579EE843-2D7C-40BF-9B94-1777724F0B8E@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:37:18 -0400
To: "Andre Kostur" <akostur@incognito.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2012 16:37:18.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[35227D20:01CD0DCA]
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] (no subject)
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 16:37:41 -0000

Two interfaces MUST use different IAIDs, but two IAIDs need not be on different interfaces.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:32 AM, "Andre Kostur" <akostur@incognito.com> wrote:

> Theoretically a device may have different "contexts" on the same interface.  So there may be multiple IAIDs on the same interface.  The IAID is not intended to specifically identify an interface.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:11, A. Gregory Rabil <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> wrote:
> Hello DHC WG,
> I am looking for clarification around the IAID.  Some of this stems from the several discussions recently regarding the DUID and the lack of a MAC address in DHCPv6.
> 
> Ted (don't mean to call you out here, but it is prevalent to my question) wrote this on the ISC DHCP list:
> >DUID+IAID uniquely identifies the interface; DUID uniquely identifies the host.
> 
> My question is can this be guaranteed?  From RFC 3315:
> 
>       Identity association (IA) A collection of addresses assigned to
>                                 a client.  Each IA has an associated
>                                 IAID.  A client may have more than one
>                                 IA assigned to it; for example, one for
>                                 each of its interfaces.
> It states "for example, one for each of its interfaces".  So, I don't see this as a MUST, or am I missing something?
> If the IAID is intended to identify the interface, then I wonder why that is not just the MAC address.  If that were the case, then every request would contain the DUID identifying the device, and the IAID to identify the actual interface in which the request was made.  I guess my concern is that if we start putting the MAC address in the DHCPv6 packet (which I am in favor of), then we should be sure to specify how it does or does not relate to the IAID.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg Rabil
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andre Kostur  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg