[dhcwg] DUID+IAID

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <greg.rabil@jagornet.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 DF25A21E8163 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.881, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 5YVG9THfJ84Q for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61FF21E8124 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2229872bku.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=RyhnXSi085rH9lzaL0jjhdS8nn9+4ACBjiB4wZw+Gi8=; b=PpzMXodDwxxk9DsOlKV0PswDO9uKmsw1fBPDFdc5d40e2Pe8WUsvKD+ImeCzs/sf3V 25DtE9kFjavAjdrkLVDbHRryjiqQKLP5GKBoHbBe4/0EAg1duSw1yg7pr+pELEHGsq4N kqm0Qh1BvcZJVx9SjAyu51tTiLS2J/pkhhvI8cTv20WNisXxpHynAmE1dJ/LqiLi9YKH wX+cyCCRUTxFWNdQ6PHZDBUUECrwe1rM+dhOnXoAosDX16ExLxqfpJA4w/yd15nSkeoS 0zTEkZq+ebaepCWzYfOKAnMBqaQqa3qBaOWElevCTo8Kx4CXIU8xYeCSaPzTlNCxShqH 0lTA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.152.156 with SMTP id g28mr14262632bkw.83.1333030693648; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.42.3 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vtfuig6Y1Zqqxd=rQc7MarO7vfkYVDG0HbzeaQrx7GcYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175cfa30f83bc704bc6264e0"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/q3hmJhK6q/EAHieC/j6LKEnPaYVtvqZ5XsYQBGH0QmBMEzF4p0bPwLYwSVgXDk533W70
Subject: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:18:16 -0000

Sorry, forgot to put a subject line...

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:11 AM, A. Gregory Rabil
<greg.rabil@jagornet.com>wrote:

> Hello DHC WG,
> I am looking for clarification around the IAID.  Some of this stems from
> the several discussions recently regarding the DUID and the lack of a MAC
> address in DHCPv6.
>
> Ted (don't mean to call you out here, but it is prevalent to my question)
> wrote this on the ISC DHCP list:
>
> >DUID+IAID uniquely identifies the interface; DUID uniquely identifies the
> host.
>
> My question is can this be guaranteed?  From RFC 3315:
>
>       Identity association (IA) A collection of addresses assigned to
>                                 a client.  Each IA has an associated
>                                 IAID.  A client may have more than one
>                                 IA assigned to it; for example, one for
>                                 each of its interfaces.
>
> It states "for example, one for each of its interfaces".  So, I don't see
> this as a MUST, or am I missing something?
>
> If the IAID is intended to identify the interface, then I wonder why that
> is not just the MAC address.  If that were the case, then every request
> would contain the DUID identifying the device, and the IAID to identify the
> actual interface in which the request was made.  I guess my concern is that
> if we start putting the MAC address in the DHCPv6 packet (which I am in
> favor of), then we should be sure to specify how it does or does not relate
> to the IAID.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Rabil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>