Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Fri, 15 January 2021 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95EA3A0BEC; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:40:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NyMs-Nm4LGeo; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972103A0B48; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 10FFdqEs013274; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:39:54 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1610725194; bh=phLwJg/NvmT+MbkQ+thmCJztwqhluz4f/+Weq0OQSgk=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=CoOi8+35CvmatsMKrxDUooAOVKfJd6eQzk3RshH/tV28dtZM5vl8eWCwn8/CTowzK RCAckJMzHID4wL5cWjDjf9ghHLEqwlHM4CrbkH8/Jd5nyU7Zd1HowM8WSLsBFwLYPH o8UIF3+XTDm/RJiV/cqgoTYtShyE+0NTK6k0NOrQA6eFEuy0l3bbSolh5kmJvN+Lcz z8UcuZjitGiGKjkNa7KwOkwCeCtURPs1VD5CVFA1WBnPwG1sP56SqeTmK8tfNgkV1j I+YSi8DllxtAkIUfzW8cMHV+ToeiadSMOqZwolyi9oZMKfb8jXldcyHft2S8JxHeW7 rPXJk+oQ2hBug==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 10FFdj9Z013140 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:39:45 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:44 -0800
Received: from ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:44 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
CC: Simon Hobson <>, Ted Lemon <>, dhcwg <>, IPv6 List <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdbrVAUq8ifd9On5SaGFHM0jDP097w==
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:39:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: B4BD67EB9175136167D147CE9F8298B94CD8B0E1A9D11D58DFA7D87A733527702000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:40:06 -0000

It is clear from these last three that people are not reading all of my responses; especially
those in response to Bob Hinden's questions where the use case is clearly explained.
Perhaps you are hoping that by asking the same question over and over again I will give
a different answer. Please go back and read *all* of the posts; it is not a good use for
any of our time for me to repeat myself over and over again.


PS Bernie and Ted - I have already explained why DUID-EN was considered but found
to be too cumbersome and a DOWNREF.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) []
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:48 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <>; dhcwg <>; IPv6 List <>
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> Fred:
> I agree with Simon.
> You have not explained why you cannot use one of the existing methods - even putting aside DUID-EN. Why can you not use DUID-LL,
> And, with DUID-EN, you can do whatever you want without anyone's input - of course, whether that usage is a good idea is a separate
> question. Yes, it may have a few additional bytes more than DUID-V6ADDR, but that hardly seems like a useful argument at this point
> as we still don't know why this is better than the existing DUID types for a STANDARDIZED type.
> I still see no text in the 00 or 01 draft about why you need this over the existing methods - i.e., why none of the existing methods will
> work.
> The other thing about a standardized DUID is that you have to assure it is not misused or misunderstood how it should be used. So,
> you need to be clear about when it MAY be used and when it MUST NOT be used.
> - Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg <> On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: dhcwg <>; IPv6 List <>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
> >> No. I questioned the purpose of having an IPv6 address in something that’s supposed to be an opaque identifier.
> >
> > And, I said that if it were *truly* opaque to *all* examinations and
> > references, then there would only ever be *one* DUID type for all
> > time. But, RFC8415 clearly shows that multiple DUID types are defined
> > and that new ones can be added through future standards action.
> Ah, you are starting from a false premise there.
> Just because something is opaque and never ever (in theory) used in any way other than "X == Y" doesn't mean there's no reason to
> only ever have one method of creating it.
> As the idea of DUID is that it should be globally unique, ideally the method used to create it should have the most sources of entropy
> possible. But different devices have different constraints. That's why we have LL and LLT since adding time of creation to the pot adds
> entropy, thus making LLT 'better' than LL, but some devices don't have a clock (and possibly, no persistent storage) making LLT
> unfeasible for them - i.e. LL is inferior to LLT, but real world constraints make it necessary.
> So here the difference between LL and LLT is easy to see, as are the constraints that might force you to use the inferior one.
> What people are asking you is : what makes this proposal so much better than what's already allowed, given that's what's in there is
> supposed to be opaque and so "it's an IPv6 address" has no bearing on it's "goodness" as a unique identifier. And more specifically,
> why is it better than an RFC4122 UUID as defined in RFC6355 - 'better' meaning sufficiently better to justify adding to the global code
> base required to support it.
> Both are 16 octets/128 bits long, both are intended to be globally unique, both require persistent storage available to early boot
> loaders. So why is the proposed 128bit value better than the already defined 128bit value ?
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list