Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt

Le 09/06/2011 04:29, Leaf yeh a écrit :
> Ted - We are not experiencing a shortage of DHCPv6 option codes,...

Yes, we use 66 decimal 0x42 for a new yet-to-be-documented option, we
think 66 may be the first available (IANA, isc sw) and max seems to be
255 even though 1 more byte can there be.

Alex

>
> Supposed you're talking about the space shortage of the DHCPv4
> option codes.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent:
> Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:57 AM To: Bharat Joshi Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Bharat Joshi wrote:
>> At present, we do not have any other use for this field. This
>> 'type' was inspired from the previous revision of this document
>> and we decided to keep it there thinking that more type of
>> relay-ids may come in future.
>
> I think the bottom line is that if you can't figure out what the
> type field does, you should take it out.   We are not experiencing a
> shortage of DHCPv6 option codes, so there's no reason to keep
> complexity in the spec to account for an unknown future circumstance
> that may or may not come to exist.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>