RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

["Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[e-mail]>]

I am happy with calling this option space "experimental".

With DHCPv6, getting an option number is much less of an issue. However, it takes work to write an I-D and get it to RFC. Some vendors may not chose to do through this process.

If we allow vendors to request option numbers from IANA without formally publishing an I-D or RFC, that should be OK (from an available number space issue). However, it does likely mean we'll have an explosion of options and might often have lots of very similar options. That I think would be bad.

Having a space for vendors and others to experiment with new options (or use site options if they so chose) is a good idea. This can be a smaller range.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 7:38 AM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: Bernie Volz (EUD); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes


I am unaware of a single example where site-specific options have ever been 
used.   This is why I think it's better not to put language about reserved 
portions of the option space in the base draft - I think we need to figure 
out what we want to do carefully.   Is it really site-specific that we want?
    What about vendor-specific?   What about user-defined?   If you want to 
reserve any space in the draft, I would just call the reserved space 
"experimental" rather than being specific about who can use it.   Reserving 
4096 codes is probably plenty, though, as you say - I don't think we need 
32k.