Re: [Autoconf] answers on DHCP DUID, key generation etc.

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:34 AM
> To: Teco Boot
> Cc: autoconf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] answers on DHCP DUID, key generation etc.
> 
> 
> Hello Teco,
> 
> Teco Boot wrote:
> > Hi Charlie,
> >
> >
> >> - DHCP DUID isn't going to help if you don't already have DHCP.
> >>  My strong recommendation, for scalability and robustness, would
> >>  be to avoid any requirement for DHCP.
> >>
> >
> > I guess you understand my point very well. There are IETF protocols that
> > assume nodes have a unique ID, and there was no discussion on getting the
> > id that I can remember. But I was not there, I assume.
> >
> > I hope your recommendation applies only for MANETs.
> >
> 
> Yes.  Obviously DHCP has a strong role in the administration
> of fixed networks and even infrastructure-based networks with
> mobile nodes.

DHCP is for enterprise networks in which there is some
modicum of distributed network administration and a
commonality of interests (which may be as basic as the
collaborative provisioning of connectivity itself). This
model fits well not only with infrastructure-based
networks but also with many MANET scenarios with which
I am familiar. 
 
> > I think DHCP can be very useful for attached MANETs, for getting
> > "additional information", i.e. other than addresses.
> >
> 
> I agree.  I just don't think it fits very well in networks composed
> of highly mobile wireless nodes, especially when the network has
> no point of attachment to the Internet.

Like maybe me and a couple of buddies going to a remote
ski area with hand-held multi-hop walkie-talkies when
there is no cellular coverage? Even then, unless we all
get together beforehand and key our L2 access codes what
we get is "anarchy-net", and anyone can crash the party.

> >> - For key distribution, you didn't like my long key?  Why not?
> >>   Well then, pick a shorter one.  It becomes a matter of engineering.
> >>
> >
> > Some do not like pre-shared keys.
> > And if it was a private, a good PRN can be generated very easily.
> > Or just pre-load a guaranteed unique global address.
> >
> 
> The latter choice makes the whole discussion moot,
> but of course when that is available I think it is the right
> thing to do.

This brings up again a point which I have made in the past 
that this group could significantly benefit from a detailed
MANET use-case analysis before saying what the addressing
architecture for *all* MANETs ought to look like.

Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com

> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf