IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 D04F621E8167 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6]
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 QRVpUQg+gyx4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D4821E8147 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2TEYIND011493; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:34:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201203291434.q2TEYIND011493@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:18:13 EDT. <CAAed6vtfuig6Y1Zqqxd=rQc7MarO7vfkYVDG0HbzeaQrx7GcYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:34:18 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 14:34:22 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  > >DUID+IAID uniquely identifies the interface; DUID uniquely identifies the
>  > host.
>  >
>  > My question is can this be guaranteed?  From RFC 3315:

=> it is not specified as 1 - 1 relationship: what doesn't make sense
is to use the same DUID+IAID for different interfaces, not the opposite.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

PS: the hardware address option stuff is very different: the only idea
is to match DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 policies on hosts. BTW I think it is not
neutral to suggest to add it by relays vs by clients as one trusts less
clients than relays...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email