> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:17 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yup. Are you aware of similar issues with changing the IAID? If the ISP >> has a >> limit to how many prefixes can be assigned on a particular customer port, >> that could cause issues, but if it's a supported feature as it would be in >> Mikael's case, I think it should be OK. Do you know the details of what was >> causing the issue? > > I don't remember the details. I looked at BBF TR-124, to see if there was > something similar there, and there wasn't. Then I looked at eRouter specs, > and did see that they are specifically re-iterating the requirement for > persistence. So maybe it came from the cable companies. Which could explain > why my memory of details is so fuzzy.
Yes, it’s very probably coming from the cable side. The first generations of cable modems and eRouters firmware sometimes used non-persistent DUID-LLTs changing at each reboot. We had also seen it from early “retail” CPEs. It was annoying enough that the persistence requirement was reiterated in some documents. > The TR-124 requirements are used by DSL providers for the CE routers they > procure/provide, and aren't expected to apply to "retail" CE routers. The > fact that this IAID requirement didn't make it into RFC 7084 leads me to > believe that the behavior of retail CE routers wrt IAID is a "don't care”. Thanks for checking. Changing the IAID might indeed be a good way to implement the “reset privacy” button. Not sure if this should be added to any specifications and which ones. Is this just a regional regulatory requirement? Looks like there isn’t any action for the IETF to take here. JF _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
