RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <> Wed, 23 January 2002 16:02 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13774 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:02:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA02169 for; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:02:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA01144; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:49:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA01116 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:49:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13159 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:49:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0NFlkh09083 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:47:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt749 ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0NFlk907209 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:47:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: FROM BY eamrcnt749 ; Wed Jan 23 09:47:41 2002 -0600
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZQBLAKB5>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:47:41 -0600
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDF4@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>
To: 'Ted Lemon' <>, Ralph Droms <>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>,
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:47:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1A425.4A7DFB00"
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

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 []
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 7:38 AM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: Bernie Volz (EUD);
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