IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 10 July 2012 23:11 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 1890C11E8159 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2e9RExHxA3kT for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D06D11E8143 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/y2tD33GTj5MlvVPog9+2x9URR6ZLQD@postini.com; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:49 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 24E771B831E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (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 182D519005C; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:11:48 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNXuU7ZrBEJQCsAkSClbxFr7Ij65cjmlCA
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:11:47 +0000
Message-ID: <A579B893-1F76-436A-A339-08B63403811D@nominum.com>
References: <CC2114CA.ED37%shwethab@cisco.com> <4B2C9E20-D925-4D9A-B9B8-AAE396379AB7@nominum.com> <CAAed6vvrfAwmCUKTLfOw0WaFtmpa_4d=Gct0P6a0UedaXXPUKw@mail.gmail.com> <2411883C-9E45-454E-A3B7-3D366D47FC81@nominum.com> <CAAed6vv26APkqEbHwDqC7P7PTJ+2dnfP5dxofXSS2-Exm6p+gA@mail.gmail.com> <14182_1341929504_q6AEBh92024157_12EEF4CE-B85C-4542-AFF5-085CDE2ACFE5@nominum.com> <1341956691.7190.24.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1341956691.7190.24.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
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_A579B8931F76436AA33908B63403811Dnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:11:21 -0000

On Jul 10, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
No.  Not only is it an interface identifier; for this purpose, it is
_the_ interface identifier.

Jeffrey, you may have your own personal beliefs about how you want to operate your own DHCPv6 server, but these beliefs are out of scope for this discussion.   This discussion is about how to extend the DHCPv6 protocol to provide functionality that will interoperate in a general way, but provide information that sites like yours need in order to associate entries in the DHCPv4 lease database and DHCPv6 allocation database with each other.

If you are interested in pursuing this latter goal, that's great.   If you just want to keep having the same old stupid argument about how RFC3315 ought to have been written, please take it somewhere else.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status