Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ip1394-dhcp-01.txt

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:29:47 -0400 (EDT)

message sent to [email-masked] by [email-masked] follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Kinnear wrote:
> 
> My first take on this is that the general idea seems ok, to wit:  On 1394
> you have to use a client-identifier. Period.
> 
> That said, I think the form of MAC address used will break a lot of servers
> (ours, for instance, :-(  ).  We get upset with a zero length
> MAC address, and I suspect we're not alone.
> 
> If the draft said that the hlen MUST be 1 and that chaddr[0] MUST be 0, then
> it would be a "legal" MAC address, and all 1394 devices would have the same
> legal MAC address with different client-identifiers, which would work with
> most if not all servers.
> 

Having seen (half) the discussion between yourself and Ted might I
suggest:

- have the client include its 1394 address in chaddr (with hlen set
  appropriately)
- change the "SHOULD" set the broadcast bit requirement to a "MUST"

This would provide both a non-zero length MAC address and some variability
in MAC address value. Of course, the ISC server may still see some hash
collisions if it has more then one 1394 subnet or 1394 subnets that 
include bridges but I gather that a reduction in the collisions would help.

It also seems cleaner then mandating chaddr[0] = 0 

Dave Lapp
Nortel Networks