AW: MAC vs DUID issue

[Albrecht, Harald]

What's bad about the DUID-LL?

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dhcp-users-bounces+harald.albrecht=siemens.com at lists.isc.org
> [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces+harald.albrecht=siemens.com at lists.isc.org] Im
> Auftrag von sthaug at nethelp.no
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. April 2014 21:38
> An: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org; dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk
> Betreff: Re: MAC vs DUID issue
> 
> > There have been "vigorous discussions" before about MAC vs GUID ! My
> understanding was that the MAC is not delivered in the DHCPv6 packets and
> are not available to the server to use. The reason for this is that those who
> designed the spec felt that MAC addresses have several flaws - there can be
> more than one per device, and they can change due to hardware changes.
> The counter point (to which I subscribe) is that while MACs have issues, they
> are for many the least bad option since they are fairly invariant, remain
> across multiple OSs and OS reinstalls (and in your case, 'careless' cloning).
> 
> I agree with this point of view too - it was a serious mistake to drop the MAC
> address.
> 
> > IIRC there was talk of defining an option to carry the MAC address, but I
> can't remember what the outcome was, and in any case it could be "some
> time" (if ever) before all devices send it.
> 
> RFC 6939 (DHCPv6 Client Link-Layer Address Option). Unfortunately, I don't
> know of any equipment which implements this yet. Also, note that this
> option is *only* meant for relay agents. On other hand - if your
> DHCPv6 client is on the local LAN, you can of course look at the source MAC
> address directly...
> 
> There's been some spirited discussion about this on Nanog recently, see for
> instance
> 
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-March/065726.html
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users