Re: Question about Vendor option
KEY@tgv.com Fri, 01 March 1996 17:14 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27440;
1 Mar 96 12:14 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27436;
1 Mar 96 12:14 EST
Received: from coral.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09560;
1 Mar 96 12:14 EST
Received: from charcoal-gw.eg.bucknell.edu by coral.bucknell.edu;
(5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-0956AM)
id AA22655; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:55:57 -0500
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by charcoal (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA06412; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:42:11 -0500
Received: from HQ.TGV.COM by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA07825; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:42:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: KEY@tgv.com
Subject: Re: Question about Vendor option
X-Orig-Sender: KEY@tgv.com
To: Ralph Droms <droms@bucknell.edu>, dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Cc: key@tgv.com
Reply-To: KEY@tgv.com
Message-Id: <825698522.658328.KEY@TGV.COM>
In-Reply-To: <v02120d02ad5ab8780f89@[134.82.7.156]>
Mail-System-Version: <MultiNet-MM(378)+TOPSLIB(158)@TGV.COM>
A passing thought: how will tag 127-based extension options be represented
for the Parameter Request List (Tag 55)? In the interest of not breaking
current implementations of option 55, it sounds like we need a new option.
Perhaps something like:
Extended Parameter Request List
This option is used by a DHCP client to request values for specified
configuration parameters. The list of requested parameters is
specified as n octets, where each octet pair is a valid DHCP
extended option code as defined in <wherever we start defining
the extended codes>.
The client MAY list the options in order of preference. The DHCP
server is not required to return the options in the requested order,
but MUST try to insert the requested options in the order requested
by the client.
The code for this option is xxx. Its minimum length is 1.
Code Len Option Codes
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
| xxx | n | oh1 | ol1 | oh2 | ol2 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
Comments?
Ken Key (key@tgv.com)
>
> At 11:21 AM 2/28/96, B Mahesh wrote:
> >As per RFC 1533, Sec 9.6, each requested parameter is a
> >valid DHCP option code.
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >What does the term 'valid DHCP option code' refer to ? Can the option
> >code be any of the numbers specified in RFC1533, that include the RFC1497
> >vendor extensionsi also?
>
> Yes, the code can be any RFC1533 option or any option defined subsequently
> in a later DHCP options RFC.
-------
Ken Key (key@tgv.com) | 101 Cooper St. | +1 (408) 457-5200 (voice)
TGV, Inc. | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 | +1 (408) 457-5208 (fax)
- Re: Question about Vendor option Ralph Droms
- Question about Vendor option B Mahesh
- Re: Question about Vendor option KEY