Subject: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt-01

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:31:53 +0200

I do support this draft and its adoption.

I will provide more detailed comments later.

It is useful and I'm involved in more than one implementation that is
potentially interested in implementing this option.

I like the changes made between -00 and -01.

One notable thing that should be specified is the actual content of the
link-layer address used by a client. I think it should be clarified that
this is supposed to be link-layer address from the interface that was
used to contact the server.

Please note that this is slightly different than DUID-LL or DUID-LLT
link-layer. DUIDs state that client picks one ll address, generates DUID
and sticks to it. For DUIDs it does not have to be the same interface
that is used for communication.

Think about a client with 5 interfaces. It will use the same DUID over
all 5 interfaces, but will use 5 different LINK_ADDR option.

Oh, and the draft should be renamed once adopted - it is no longer
called hardware option. Something like
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-link-layer-option will do just fine.

Tomek

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:56:30 +0200 (CEST)

> used to contact the server.

Agreed. This is vital.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email-masked]

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:33:59 +0200

>  > used to contact the server.

+1

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: one thing which took unexpected time in the SD-NAT demo at the IETF
meeting on Sunday was the fact the LL DUID of CPE boxes didn't contain
the MAC address of the Ethernet uplink (the one printed on the box,
or returned by ifconfig / ip addr) but the previous (value - 1) one...
BTW I believe it shouldn't have been too surprising: it is one of the
reasons the idea to pickup the MAC address in LL or LLT DUIDs doesn't
work.

---

From: perl-list <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:39:30 -0400 (EDT)

> ]

I agree with this.

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:43:06 +0100

>>> used to contact the server.

	Me too.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:56:27 +0000

Point of order, I love to see people participate, but the time to send your +1 messages is when we do calls for adoption (which we will be doing a lot of soon) and when we do last calls (which, again, we will be doing a fair number of soon).   It's also good to get a sense of consensus when there is disagreement about something.   But if everyone agrees, there's no need to chime in with an <aol/>.   :)