DHCPv6 and MAC Address inclusion
Niall O'Reilly
Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie
Fri Jan 27 11:04:29 UTC 2012
On 26 Jan 2012, at 22:57, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> They are necessary for DHCP to function in conformance with the standard.
>> > So they need to exist so that they can exist? Sounds like a circular argument.
>
> The standard says "do X". If your implementation does Y, you have not implemented the standard.
> How is this circular? The DUID identifies the client; without it, you can't differentiate between clients.
Ted,
As you've suggested in an earlier message (to <dhcp-users at lists.isc.org>),
the discussion really belongs on the DHCWG list. I'm trying to move it there.
[Anyone replying may find it useful to subscribe to <dhcwg at ietf.org> first.]
I think you're missing the point. I agree with the OP that the argument
is circular. This is because the context of the standard is self-referential
and self-motivating, without regard to the need for compatibility and
interoperability with existing business processes, some of them in place for
20 years or so. These quite commonly depend on an identifier which can be
obtained from a label on the outside of an as-yet-unopened carton containing
the device to be registered so that DHCP and other network provisioning tasks
can be performed. These tasks typically need to be completed in advance of
connection of the device, by an otherwise unaided customer, to the net.
Feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 matters, and needs to be available
not just in the network, but at the business process layer. Avoiding
feature parity, even for an apparently good reason such as discouraging
non-compliance, is an approach which obstructs adoption of IPv6.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
University College Dublin IT Services
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list