Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02

Hi Prashanth,

Thanks for supporting this draft. 

As mentioned in the draft, "[RFC2131] specifies that a combination of
'client identifier' or 'chaddr' and assigned network address constitute
a unique identifier for the client's lease and are used by both the
client and server to identify a lease referred in any DHCP messages".
How would a server allocate and keep track of clients when both "DHCP
packet with 0 mac-addr and no client-id.". So its implicit that server
would drop such packets.

The client behavior is out of scope of this draft, this draft only
focuses on server behavior. 

-

Regards,

Prashant Jhingran

From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Prashanth R
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:41 AM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02

Hi Ted,

I am in favour of supporting this draft. 

I have a couple of suggestions: 

1) Can we add a section which would say what SHOULD be the behaviour on
the client when it receives a packet with the client-id set. 
2) Can a clarification be added on what the server SHOULD do when it
receives a DHCP packet with 0 mac-addr and no client-id. 

Thanks,
Prashanth. 

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
wrote:

This document corrects a bug in RFC2131 that forbids the DHCP server
from returning a DHCP client identifier.   The lack of a DHCP client
identifier creates a problem in two cases: where the underlying
transport has no link-layer address, and where two clients are running
on the same host, supplying different client identifiers so as to
present different network identities.   In both of these cases,
insufficient information is returned from the DHCP server to clearly
identify the client that is the intended recipient of the message.   The
only way to fix this is to _require_ the DHCP server to return the
client identifier if it receives it.   This is what the proposed
document does.

We checked for consensus in the meeting, and four people were in favor
of advancing the draft; nobody was against.

I think this is actually pretty important work-it's a lingering bug in
the spec which I think will come back to bite us more and more as we
start getting deeper into the dual-stack transition.   So if you haven't
read the document, please do.

If you support advancing it, please signify by replying to this message
and saying that you support it. If you think it's a bad idea, please
signify by replying to this message and explaining why.   If you have
comments or changes to propose, please send them along, and also signify
whether you are in favor of advancement with the change, without the
change, or oppose advancement.

We will determine consensus on April 27, based solely on responses on
the mailing list, so please do respond.

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg