Re: A counter-proposal for option 127
David Lapp <lapp@waterloo.hp.com> Mon, 19 February 1996 04:41 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01122;
18 Feb 96 23:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01117;
18 Feb 96 23:41 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18987;
18 Feb 96 23:41 EST
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA04037; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 23:04:43 -0500
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 23:04:43 -0500
Message-Id: <199602190311.AA035299495@hppadan.waterloo.hp.com>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
X-Orig-Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: David Lapp <lapp@waterloo.hp.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: A counter-proposal for option 127
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
.. stuff deleted > > There is one difference between your two proposals: Dave suggests wrapping > multiple extended subcodes in one instance of option 127, while Shawn > suggests encoding each subcode option separately. In the interests of > simplicity, I'd lean towards encoding each separately, but either way is > OK. > > How about (from Shawn's message): > > Code Len Option Data... > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- > | 127 | n | oh | ol | d1 | d2 | ... > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- > I've got no strong feelings about putting multiple subcodes in the wrapper. Shawn's suggestion sounds fine to me. Dave L.
- A counter-proposal for option 127 Shawn Mamros
- Re: A counter-proposal for option 127 Ralph Droms
- Re: A counter-proposal for option 127 David Lapp
- Re: A counter-proposal for option 127 Ralph Droms