IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] Option 60 VCI

"Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com> Tue, 27 April 2004 23:11 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09418 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIbdT-0004GG-Sa for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:05:10 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3RN57WS016376 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:05:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIbWr-0003La-8b for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08968 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIbWm-000043-6G for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:12 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIbW6-0007lz-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:57:31 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIbVL-0007ec-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:56:43 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIbOs-0002FQ-Vn; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:50:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIbKc-0001Hr-9L for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:45:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08472 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIbKX-0006Wu-6b for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:45:33 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIbJp-0006PU-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:44:49 -0400
Received: from chimera.incognito.com ([206.172.52.66]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIbJ5-0006Eo-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:44:03 -0400
Received: from homerdmz.incognito.com ([206.172.52.116] helo=HOMER.incognito.com.) by chimera.incognito.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BIbId-0000ON-04; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:43:35 -0700
Received: by homer.incognito.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <HP3FRSX6>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:43:04 -0700
Message-ID: <B34580038487494C8B7F36DA06160B870125C188@homer.incognito.com>
From: "Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com>
To: 'Jake Howerton' <jake@capanis.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Option 60 VCI
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:43:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C42CA9.00C14DA0"
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60

You don't really mention in what way you want to separate your devices.  The
cable modems are easily identifiable since they are following the DOCSIS
specifications, and DOCSIS mandates that option 60 must be of a certain
form.  As far as I know there is no general requirement.  From a DHCP
standpoint there is no requirement that option 60 is sent at all.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Howerton [mailto:jake@capanis.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:30 PM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Option 60 VCI
> 
> 
> Do all clients transmit option 60?  I am trying to separate 
> devices on my
> network and am looking to find out if linksys and other 
> consumer routers
> transmit option 60 as well as consumer and enterprise Aps 
> like the Orinoco
> AP1000.  I have my cable modems working with this method.  If 
> there are any
> other effective ways to do this, suggestions are appreciated.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email