Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Bernie, using your logic UUIDs could also have gone into DUID-EN under some
arbitrary PEN code. But, they weren’t; they were *standardized* as DUID-UUID
which elevates them in standing as equals to all other forms of DUIDs. Nothing less
will suffice for DUIDs that would be based on IPv6 addresses that are specifically
generated as unique Identifiers for a node.

Fred

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 1:21 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; dhcwg <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt


Also, I really have no idea what you mean by “under the care of an arbitrary DUID-EN PEN code”.

After all, this is just about a [unique] identifier isn’t it?

This isn’t putting anything “under the care of”. It is just the way it is communicating between DHCP client and servers and for the client (or perhaps server since it could use DUID-EN too) to identifier itself as a “different” device than another.

-          Bernie

From: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

Bernie, putting the entire global IPv6 unicast address space under the care of an
arbitrary DUID-EN PEN code would be like sending Biden to the inauguration on
a bicycle. You don’t transport VIPs to big events on vehicles made of tinker toys;
you give them a full-length limo and full escort.

Fred

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 1:05 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt


That anyone can get a PEN code has no bearing on this – the DUID-EN is still standards track because YOUR PEN will be different than someone else’s and hence their format does not “collide” with yours because the Enterprise IDs are different.

This enterprise id has been very successfully used in the vendor class and vendor options (see RFC8415 sections 21.16 and 21.17). Cablelabs and other standards groups use these very heavily to provide for additional information that a vendor (or standards organization) needs to provide their devices. See for example https://community.cablelabs.com/wiki/plugins/servlet/cablelabs/alfresco/download?id=b74c68d8-b6af-45e6-81bf-936004d0273f.

> That, plus I don’t want to carry around the extra 4 bytes for a PEN code…

That’s life. There’s a lot of things I don’t want but have no choice over.

-          Bernie

From: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:54 PM
To: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

Ted, the allocation policy for the Private Enterprise Number (PEN) code for users
of DUID-EN is not Standards Track; anyone and their brother can easily obtain a
PEN code by filling out a simple form:

https://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page

I did one for “LinkUp Networks”, but that is not in any way tied to a Standards
Track RFC. IANA did not even ask me any questions; they simply allocated the
code for free. So, as far as standards status goes, an arbitrary PEN code has no
standing while the global IPv6 unicast address space has full Internet standards
status according to RFCs 4291 and 8200. I would therefore see it as a major
DOWNREF to entrust the entire IPv6 address space to any random person
who decided to register a PEN code.

That, plus I don’t want to carry around the extra 4 bytes for a PEN code…

Fred

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 12:31 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

On Jan 15, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
using DUID-EN with some
arbitrary PEN code to encode the entire global IPv6 unicast address space would
IMHO be an unacceptable DOWNREF.

You said this before. I don’t understand what this means. DUID-EN is in a standards track RFC. How is this a DOWNREF? And why use an arbitrary enterprise number?