IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

sthaug@nethelp.no Thu, 28 May 2015 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9851A1A90D7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQWx5njYhgyF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27C911A908F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 92744 invoked from network); 28 May 2015 12:11:05 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 28 May 2015 12:11:05 -0000
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:11:05 +0200
Message-Id: <20150528.141105.74661164.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: volz@cisco.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5EC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5DA3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55670179.8030400@cs.tcd.ie> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5EC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/q8ugDm-7DKtIYWtnKt95O9wAygQ>
Cc: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 28 May 2015 12:11:16 -0000

> It needs a MUST because the DHCP protocol (RFC 2131/2132) specifies that the client-identifier option is OPTIONAL. If not present, the mac-address is used. And as has already been discussed, the mac-address is not a good choice here because of the tunnel interface.
> 
> Thus, this document REQUIRES that the client use the client-identifier option when using shared-v4-allocation requests - the option is not optional.

I understand the reasoning behind the requirement. However - as far as
I know, Windows is (by far) the most common user of client-identifier
- and sets the client identifier to the same value as the MAC address.

Do we have reason to believe that the Windows behavior would be changed
given a MUST in this document?

Steinar Haug, AS 2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email