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

[Andre Kostur <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:57 AM, perl-list <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Also, as
> this draft is intended to help correlation between DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 using
> the (hardware / link layer / MAC - whatever we are calling it these days)
> address, your argument about downstream interfaces that would not be known
> in DHCPv4 space is irrelevant.

Changing gears for a second... if the point behind this draft is to
correlate DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 leases, is the MAC address sufficient?
Consider the case of any device using the DHCPv4 client identifier to
distinguish between multiple leases on the same computer.  (One client
that I know does this is Microsoft RRAS servers.).  Or any case where
there is no MAC address to speak of (wasn't there something like DHCP
over Infiniband which mandated the use of Client ID since there was no
MAC address?).

Or are we writing these cases as "we don't care about these edge
problems, using the MAC address will solve the vast majority of the
cases"?

-- 
Andre Kostur