RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942

Cisco does implement them and has for a long time!

But the other problem with option 60/43 is that there is only ONE
vendor's data that can be exchanged. So, there's no way to communicate
multiple vendor's information if the client is a general purpose system
and not an "appliance" that does only one thing.

That's one reason 124/125 are much more attractive longer term.

Though of course there also need to be APIs to the DHCP Client or other
means to "set" options to be sent and "get" returned options.

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:35 PM
> To: peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
> Cc: Kostur, Andre; dhcwg@ietf.org; Bernie Volz (volz)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please 
> place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942
> 
> On May 20, 2005, at 1:45 PM, peter_blatherwick@mitel.com wrote:
> > Any feedback on 60 / 43?  Well deployed?  Well understood in the  
> > real world?
> 
> The biggest tragedy of Option 60/43 is that so few client vendors  
> implement it.   AFAIK all the server vendors implement it - to my  
> knowledge, the Nominum server and the ISC server do, and I would be  
> shocked if any of the other commercial servers don't.
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg