Re: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

Mark Stapp <> Fri, 18 January 2002 22:12 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29000 for <>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA07428 for; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA07338; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA07324 for <>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28821 for <>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA08442; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AAM51484; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:07:29 -0500
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K <>
From: Mark Stapp <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

Thanks for putting this list together. I have a couple of observations.

1) The FQDN option needs, I think, to look a lot like the FQDN option for 
dhcpv4. The name encoding must be specified. There needs to be 
specification about hosts who do not initially know their entire fqdn. 
There needs to be a way to communicate about which party (if any) will be 
updating DNS. It's probably on my plate to produce that, actually.

2) The subnet-selection option text should not compel the server to somehow 
obey the client's suggestion. It should be explict that the server 
administrator's configuration takes precedence, and that the client's 
indication that it desires a specific subnet can only be a hint that's 
considered along with all of the other information available to the server.

A nit: isn't the option-len sufficient to determine the prefix length? Is 
the prefix-len byte necessary?

3) The encoding for the domain names in the NIS and NIS+ Domain Name 
options should be DNS encoding, shouldn't it? That seems more robust than 
ASCII to me.

4) The 'Service Location Protocol Directory Agent Option' places the 
'typed-scope-list-len' field before the 'DA address', rather than before 
the 'typed scope list'. Couldn't the length of the list immediately precede 
the list?

-- Mark

dhcwg mailing list