Skip to main content

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sam Hartman
2006-04-03
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-03-28
01 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-03-28
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-03-28
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-03-24
01 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-24
01 Margaret Cullen Note field has been cleared by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-20
01 Margaret Cullen
[Note]: '3/20/06:  Waiting for indication from Bernie Volz about whether he wants to fix the lowercase "may"s based on Bert''s remaining comments.' added by Margaret …
[Note]: '3/20/06:  Waiting for indication from Bernie Volz about whether he wants to fix the lowercase "may"s based on Bert''s remaining comments.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-20
01 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-20
01 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-06
01 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sam Hartman
2006-03-06
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-01.txt
2005-12-02
01 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-12-01
2005-12-01
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2005-12-01
01 David Kessens
[Ballot comment]
I support Bert's DISCUSS:

Why does the DHC working group not standarize an option for for example:

a "caller ID" telephone number for …
[Ballot comment]
I support Bert's DISCUSS:

Why does the DHC working group not standarize an option for for example:

a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection

It is very hard to make something 'globally unique' if you don't know what it is exactly.
2005-12-01
01 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2005-12-01
01 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2005-12-01
01 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot discuss]
Looking at section 3:

  3.  The Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

  This option MAY be added by DHCPv6 relay agents which terminate …
[Ballot discuss]
Looking at section 3:

  3.  The Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

  This option MAY be added by DHCPv6 relay agents which terminate
  switched or permanent circuits and have mechanisms to identify the
  remote host end of the circuit.  The remote-id field MAY be used to
  encode, for instance:

  o  a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection
  o  a "user name" prompted for by a Remote Access Server
  o  a remote caller ATM address
  o  a "modem ID" of a cable data modem
  o  the remote IP address of a point-to-point link
  o  a remote X.25 address for X.25 connections
  o  an interface identity, which might be the switch's DUID [1]
      suffixed by the interface-id from the DHCPv6 Interface-Id option.

  The remote ID MUST be globally unique.

Then I wonder:
- the option MAY be added. So one cannot assume it will be added by anyone
- the option MAY be used for many things, but one never knows if/how
  the server is going to use it
- the "remote ID MUST be globally unique", yet it can be as short as 1
  octet. How is that "global uniqueness" guaranteed/administered?

The doc is targeted for standards track.
But what/how does this option do to help STANDARDIZE any DHCP(v6)
behaviour?

Or am I just confused?
2005-12-01
01 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2005-12-01
01 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2005-12-01
01 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2005-11-30
01 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2005-11-30
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-11-30
01 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2005-11-29
01 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2005-11-29
01 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-11-27
01 Sam Hartman
[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section does not appear to discuss the
potential problems associated with trusting the remote ID.  For
example, spoofing caller ID …
[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section does not appear to discuss the
potential problems associated with trusting the remote ID.  For
example, spoofing caller ID information is relativly easy; if DHCP
selected which network to put a subscriber on based on caller id, then
this might be subject to abuse.  I'm not asking for a prohibition of
such uses simply a discussion of the implications.
2005-11-27
01 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2005-11-23
01 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman
2005-11-23
01 Margaret Cullen Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman
2005-11-23
01 Margaret Cullen Created "Approve" ballot
2005-11-21
01 Margaret Cullen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Margaret Wasserman
2005-11-21
01 Margaret Cullen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-12-01 by Margaret Wasserman
2005-10-26
01 Michelle Cotton
IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a DHCPv6 option code for the Relay Agent Remote-ID Option in the following registry: …
IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a DHCPv6 option code for the Relay Agent Remote-ID Option in the following registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters
2005-10-18
01 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2005-10-04
01 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-10-04
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-10-04
01 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Margaret Wasserman
2005-10-04
01 Margaret Cullen Last Call was requested by Margaret Wasserman
2005-10-04
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-10-04
01 (System) Last call text was added
2005-10-04
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-09-27
01 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-04-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt