IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Hardware Option

Paul Ebersman <list-dhcwg@dragon.net> Wed, 28 March 2012 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <list-dhcwg@dragon.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B32D21E8294 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sAEXH0X4iQfw for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.dragon.net (mail.dragon.net [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170B821E816A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fafnir.remote.dragon.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C023740639 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id B7FAE693D0A; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fafnir.remote.dragon.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5002693D05 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Paul Ebersman <list-dhcwg@dragon.net>
In-reply-to: <p0624080acb5a0395f384@simon.thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <CAOAqA8c=_OPcxT=KaAX3m8SZU=AsMwekEQq4gc6hqfGhW+D1ig@mail.gmail.com> <CB4C16B8.34B05%shwethab@cisco.com> <D9B5773329187548A0189ED6503667890AD68308@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> <20120209.205240.78726629.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAL10_BqmMDdpxxKy2qCE5qbmWnd2vs9tZBSk97ZK-MC=tDcZbw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240807cb59ef43fcc2@simon.thehobsons.co.uk> <CAL10_Bq9wJuDuHrg8xz6FwhVBECC4PitM-Z4GSkZZL_biHJ5vw@mail.gmail.com> <p0624080acb5a0395f384@simon.thehobsons.co.uk>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> message dated "Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:28:00 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:54:29 +0200
Message-Id: <20120328155429.B7FAE693D0A@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Hardware Option
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 28 Mar 2012 15:54:31 -0000

Would like to add my support for doing this in the relay. While the fact
that there is a cisco patent is not ideal, I think that updating code in
relays from the usual suspects (cisco, juniper, isc, etc.) and dhcp
servers (isc, microsoft) is much easier and more likely than trying to
update client code.

Most folks that want this are much more likely to already be running
relays, be pretty current on code, etc.

That seems to outweigh the hassles of dealing with the existing patent.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email