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

["A. Gregory Rabil" <[e-mail]>]

> We are hinting at the machine's identity, not the interface's identity.

I believe this is exactly what limits the usefulness of this option.  Why
not identify the machine AND the interface?  I understand the argument that
it is easier to update relay agents versus clients, but it just seems like
this is incomplete solution.  I also understand the DUID/IAID and am not
out to change that at all.  I would simply like add this link-layer option
to identify the interface actually being configured in order to provide as
much information as possible for administrative control, because experience
has shown that such controls are inevitably needed.

Greg

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:41 PM, A. Gregory Rabil wrote:
>
> I don't believe the information would be the same in the case where the
> client is requesting an address for a different interface (which is
> possible in DHCPv6, but not in DHCPv4).  That's what I was trying to
> explain with the rest of my post.
>
>
> Why do we care?   The link layer address is not an interface
> identifier—it's a hint to be used by your corporate back-office inventory
> tracking system so that it can tell that an IPv4 address belongs to the
> same machine as an IPv6 address.   As long as your inventory tracking
> system has a list of all the interfaces on a machine, or as long as the
> DHCPv4 server has received a request from the same interface, the
> connection is made.   We are hinting at the machine's identity, not the
> interface's identity.
>
>