Re: [dhcwg] Option 60 VCI

Jake Howerton <jake@nettera.net> Fri, 23 April 2004 00:05 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14039 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGo7r-0008FI-By for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:01:03 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3N013Lq031689 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:01:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGnqo-000308-5K for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:43:26 -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 TAA13168 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:43:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGnqk-0001ww-EW for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:43:22 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnps-0001gn-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:42:29 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnp3-0001Qf-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:41:37 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGneq-0006Sr-PE; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:31:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGnUR-0003Ai-NT for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:20:19 -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 TAA11793 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGnUO-0003QG-4Q for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:20:16 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnTQ-0003Be-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:19:17 -0400
Received: from mail.nettera.net ([66.246.92.2] helo=athena.nettera.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGnSX-0002iO-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:18:21 -0400
Received: (qmail 2084 invoked by uid 2520); 22 Apr 2004 23:17:49 -0000
Received: from jake@nettera.net by athena.nettera.net by uid 2020 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc3 (clamuko: 0.60. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 0.171485 secs); 22 Apr 2004 23:17:49 -0000
Received: from pool-68-237-14-21.ny325.east.verizon.net (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (68.237.14.21) by greenermedia.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2004 23:17:49 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:17:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Option 60 VCI
From: Jake Howerton <jake@nettera.net>
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <BCADCADC.AECB%jake@nettera.net>
In-Reply-To: <B34580038487494C8B7F36DA06160B870125C106@homer.incognito.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3165506268_1094818"
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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60

Andre,

Thanks for the response.  Do you know if most devices send this option or
most dont?  I am trying to capture the packets with ethereal but none of the
devices I have at my disposal at this moment currently seem to do it.
Unless I am approaching this incorrectly.  Someone told me what the cable
modems send so I didn't have to go through this discover process with them.

My purpose is basically for controlling the network.  In conjunction with
firewall rules I would basically like to ban certain devices and or limit
access for certain devices.  This is in residential apartment buildings for
instance I don't want people putting consumer wireless routers on their
cable modem and opening up holes in the network.  Or I want to keep access
points on a different subnet so wannabe hackers cant mess with them easily
from the subnet that client devices get assigned.

Jake


On 4/22/04 6:06 PM, "Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com> wrote:

> No device is _required_ to send option 60.
> 
> Also, you don't mention what you're trying to accomplish by "separating your
> devices".