RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

Richard Barr Hibbs <> Thu, 24 January 2002 06:11 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07677 for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:11:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id BAA10877 for; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:11:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA03891; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA03860 for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07409 for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <> for; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:59:30 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6
In-reply-to: <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Bhaskar A K
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:52
> - FQDN Option
...I want to reserve comments on this option until I've thought about it a
little bit more... comments by Mark, Bernie, and others have provoked my
curiosity to review this more thoroughly

> - Static Route Option
> The routes consist of a list of IP address  pairs.  The first address is
> the  destination  address, and the second  address is the router for the
> destination.
...I don't disagree with the anything but the unfortunate duplication of
field names: "destination prefix address" is used for both destination
address and router address.  I suggest that the prefix used for router
address should be renamed as "router prefix address."

> - Service Location Protocol Directory Agent Option
> The Directory Agent option specifies a one or more Directory Agents (DA),
> along with zero or more scopes supported by the DAs.
>, the illustration is unclear:  it seems to suggest that there are
precisely two DA's and that the Typed Scope List is mandatory (and of
non-zero length).

> - Service Location Protocol Service Scope Option
> This option indicates scopes that should be used by a Service Agent (SA)
> as described in RFC 2165, when responding to Service Request messages as
> specified by the Service Location Protocol (SLP).
>, again, the illustration is unclear, confusion arising because the
two Typed Scope Lists shown having identical names.

I also appreciate the effort that Vijay put into this proposal.


dhcwg mailing list