[dhcwg] RE: draft-jang-dhc-haopt-00.txt

[Alper Yegin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bernie,

Thank you for the review and feedback.

> In DHCPv6 we use 16-bit option (and suboption) codes and lengths. It
would
> be best if this draft switched to using 16-bit fields for the
sub-option
> and
> length fields. Please see RFC 3315 and section 22.17. Note also that
for
> some forms of identification/authentication (opaque type), it is
> conceivable
> that it might exceed a length of 255 bytes!

We will fix that.

> Also, with a 16-bit option number space, we've got plenty of option
number
> space and it might be best to drop the Home Agent Discovery Option and
> simply make the two sub-options regular options? Or, is there a reason
> you'd
> prefer having sub-options?

Nothing other than clumping the related information together. We can
split the options if this is the preferred way. 

> For the Home Network Information Sub-option, I assume that if multiple
> addresses (or prefixes) are specified, the A, reserved, prefix-length
and
> address/prefix fields are all repeated (18 bytes/address). It might be
> good
> to specify this?

Yes, that's the intent. We'll add more text to clarify this.

Thanks again.

Alper



_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg