[dhcwg] RE: draft-jang-dhc-haopt-00.txt

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 03 August 2004 05:43 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03352; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:43:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BrryV-0007Ua-JC; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 01:36:35 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BrrwQ-0006IN-S3 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 01:34:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02908 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BrrzQ-0003hr-Hp for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 01:37:34 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ( by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2004 22:36:08 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com []) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i735Xo78013736; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from volzw2k (rtp-vpn3-154.cisco.com []) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AKO31695; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: heejin.jang@samsung.com, alper.yegin@samsung.com, athene@sait.samsung.co.kr
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 01:33:37 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <000101c4791b$739a81c0$3e858182@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "'DHC WG (E-mail)'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] RE: draft-jang-dhc-haopt-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi. In preparing for the DHC WG meeting I have the following comments on

In DHCPv6 we use 16-bit option (and suboption) codes and lengths. It would
be best if this draft switched to using 16-bit fields for the sub-option and
length fields. Please see RFC 3315 and section 22.17. Note also that for
some forms of identification/authentication (opaque type), it is conceivable
that it might exceed a length of 255 bytes!

Also, with a 16-bit option number space, we've got plenty of option number
space and it might be best to drop the Home Agent Discovery Option and
simply make the two sub-options regular options? Or, is there a reason you'd
prefer having sub-options?

For the Home Network Information Sub-option, I assume that if multiple
addresses (or prefixes) are specified, the A, reserved, prefix-length and
address/prefix fields are all repeated (18 bytes/address). It might be good
to specify this?

- Bernie

dhcwg mailing list