IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] "Options" field

"Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com> Tue, 14 May 2002 19:59 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03596 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA17445 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18690; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18640 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:32:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from portal.incognito.com (PORTAL.INCOGNITO.COM [207.102.214.30]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23569 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:31:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from homerdmz.incognito.com ([207.102.214.106] helo=homer.incognito.com.) by portal.incognito.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 177e9O-00014v-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 08:23:42 -0700
Received: by homer.incognito.com. with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZV8S3VK>; Tue, 14 May 2002 08:38:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4FB49E60CFBA724E88867317DAA3D19849587E@homer.incognito.com.>
From: "Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com>
To: 'Katia Linker' <KatiaL@radlan.com>, DHCP IETF mailing list <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] "Options" field
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:38:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1FB5D.57863CB0"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Comments inline....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Linker [mailto:KatiaL@radlan.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:28 AM
> To: DHCP IETF mailing list
> Subject: [dhcwg] "Options" field
> 
> 
> 
> Hi !
> My question to all of you is regarding the "options" field of 
> DHCP header.
> *	Is it possible for DHCP server to receive some message with the
> length
> of options field = X, and send another message as a reply to 
> client with
> the length of options field = Y ? 

Sure.  Just means that the server has more to say than the client.

> *	According to RFC 2131, the minimal length of the 
> options field is
> 312,
> what is the maximal length of this field ?

Probably the size of a UDP packet (minus the size of the header... 200 or so
bytes).  However, clients can tell the server that they can only accept
messages up to size X (there's an option for it).

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email