IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DUID+IAID

sthaug@nethelp.no Fri, 30 March 2012 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 514D721F85D8 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 6DpbD-+ClR8L for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4206821F85D1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76579 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2012 15:02:50 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 30 Mar 2012 15:02:50 -0000
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:02:50 +0200
Message-Id: <20120330.170250.74676247.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: greg.rabil@jagornet.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAAed6vv6gDkjnHO1YujFbTm=fhJVZHi_25u6=PRgTiDrO6uR4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201203300826.q2U8Qx51078004@givry.fdupont.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D478A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAed6vv6gDkjnHO1YujFbTm=fhJVZHi_25u6=PRgTiDrO6uR4g@mail.gmail.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
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr, Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:02:53 -0000

> > > I raise here a silly but real concern: the common assumption
> > > a MAC address is unique to a physical interface is *false*:
> >
> > Right, that's why we don't want to use it as an identifier.
> 
> Okay, so given that the MAC address is not unique, then in order to
> "provision" devices (aka static binding, reservation, or manual dhcp), the
> administrator must know both the DUID and the MAC of the device to be
> provisioned, correct?

The assumption that the MAC address is unique is indeed false. In
addition to the one-MAC-per-box model (Sun at least *used to* have
this), you also have customers cloning a MAC address they have found
on a web page, and similar fun stuff. Providers with a large pool of
DHCP customers are almost guaranteed to have several duplicates.

However, in practice the MAC address is for the most part good enough,
and I see no need for both DUID and MAC for static address assignment.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email