Re: [dhcwg] (no subject)

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 08C6B21E813B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.287, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 PpLDl2vgPPEF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog104.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog104.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE8AE21E8133 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob104.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3SAlf3aSTE2YccNZBzI9+pHL3Hc52fG@postini.com; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:39 PDT
Received: by mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com with SMTP id j13so3997643lah.33 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:37 -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=ktgfRPOAkY3PgtJkuR+tQ+pVDp9NcOsewUKcu41EGkQ=; b=ReU5o5TSAOklRnwps/FwPlMvJ49QgtgeAiU9OBa8Tsxp/lsNfspPbsLsq+xiLYo6oo 7JuMoOZCaqWoQ8e1j5kXwyOmPtaqh/dYTavh/2Jh4t0P5vpIP2CxDlUq+Du3wNjUlef4 R/jldX+RPx6zvo3gPFjQSwnqxmitAcMFwlflMlxjPlLj0mlwDgIAevJxA44nyyBclWAV ksB0XQx0Dd10MbAczKhll8KoM1G1yoA0nBMTEnQ5boRBu8LD+Vn6aEgS/anMXLmX7ECx h82PjfbT9/s+ziIb/hEQhv8Alqoe++YpFr85Ukm+03z+kIUHmhCzHinGGlJLEq6Nb/8o 6c8g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.145.131 with SMTP id su3mr28108705lab.46.1333035157045; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.86.135 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAed6vvjfpQaQieO02dH_Kb5QnQHKLG4AWsAf8nvC+VXSAcj3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAed6vvjfpQaQieO02dH_Kb5QnQHKLG4AWsAf8nvC+VXSAcj3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:32:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL10_Bou4LoC-3zDBn4M57FOwnMpakA5m8qwsr2gUHsJQsLr-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234ab50240d404bc636fc2
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbaAe4A2r/89Pjf9oyYygxOHnwn7Z8yoW8esTqlS6WqC6+RV5sTFOSM38lABLH+63FFBAN
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 15:32:40 -0000

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;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 *