IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F44528C0CE for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WdhVmr7hKDP2 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFA428C0DF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTJocFGuxCZ6BMkNDM9M9aWsFBeiBAyiw@postini.com; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:09:18 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A72B1B8F3F; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:09:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <201009221245.OAA25958@TR-Sys.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:08:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1AD25EE0-2766-456A-A2F4-5A0D1967D6E8@nominum.com>
References: <201009221245.OAA25958@TR-Sys.de>
To: Alfred HÎnes <ah@tr-sys.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "kgrochla@proximetry.com" <kgrochla@proximetry.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:08:52 -0000

On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> Given the scarcity of DHCPv4 option numbers and the intimate
>    relationship to IEEE 802.11, wouldn't it be a much cleaner
>    solution to use vendor-specific options for this purpose (under
>    an IEEE owned vendor ID) than further reducing the DHCPv4 option
>    code name space -- the latter should preferably be reserved for
>    options with a more general applicability?

No, that's not what vendor options are for.   We actually have a fairly substantial set of option codes available still, although it's definitely limited.   What I've been planning to propose, but haven't done yet, is to reserve a bunch of options that can be used for extended option codes.   I'm thinking to reserve sixteen of the remaining codes that are available.   These would then be used to introduce a second byte of option code.   16x256=4096 option codes.   Combined with a form of fusion, the machines had ... oh wait, wrong movie.   Anyway, I really don't think we should allow the potential for option code space depletion to drive us to use vendor options.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email