Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 2323321F86DA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxwUg2HJIyF9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1059A21F86DB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUD4zE9mkhAhHUJHty0SCg/sHdthYWUKE@postini.com; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:48 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B5E108002 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D2419005C; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:19:46 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNhTu7gFlX/ZntC0OFRh8xVQ/AAZdwtBEAgACpJYA=
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:19:45 +0000
Message-ID: <68B364DA-5566-41B1-B275-92D3D0834459@nominum.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_68B364DA556641B1B27592D3D0834459nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:19:49 -0000

On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
One thought I had, especially regarding the DUID-UUID, was to drop the first two octets (DUID-Type) from the hashing as that allows coverage of the full UUID. Also, the DUID-Type field hardly seems worth hashing - as there's unlikely to be much, if any, variability in that data (at best the values would be 00-01, 00-02, 00-03, or 00-04 today).

In principle, hashing the DUID type would distinguish between two DUIDs that only differed by type.   But I agree with you that it's not likely to be important—this is just a hash.