RE: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and 83.

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2002 20:31 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03505 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:31:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g99KX8516076 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:33:08 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99KX8v16073 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:33:08 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03484 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99KULv15929; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:30:21 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99KTVv15898 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:29:31 -0400
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03372 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-282.cisco.com [10.82.241.26]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA03414; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021009162256.03601d40@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:29:17 -0400
To: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and 83.
Cc: "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021009132649.018c3f00@wells.cisco.com>
References: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBCD94@entmaexch02.broad band.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

At one point, I did some work on an option code cleanup.  I still have the 
basic information if anyone is interested in picking it up and finishing 
the review, or I can move it forward.  Options 83 and 84 are on the list as 
"returnable".

- Ralph

At 01:31 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, John Schnizlein wrote:
>And DHCP option 83 should also be part of this IANA cleanup.
>I recall a remark in an IETF plenary that IANA was still planning
>to clean up the assignments, and that DHCP options was recognized
>as needing work.
>
>Thanks for the historical explanation of the (erroneous) option 84.
>
>John
>
>At 01:10 PM 10/9/2002, Woundy, Richard wrote:
> >IANA seems to be a little more confused than we realize.
> >
> >Looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters, I see:
> >
> >   82      Agent Circuit ID         N    Agent Circuit ID
> >   83      Agent Remote ID          N    Agent Remote ID
> >   84      Agent Subnet Mask        N    Agent Subnet Mask
> >
> >And then later on the same page:
> >
> >DHCP Agent Sub-Option Codes  per [RFC3046]
> >
> >Code    Sub-Option Description                 Reference
> >-----   -----------------------                ---------
> >   1    Agent Circuit ID Sub-option            [RFC3046]
> >   2    Agent Remote ID Sub-option             [RFC3046]
> >   3    Sub-option 3 is reserved and should      [Droms]
> >        not be assigned at this time;
> >        proprietary and incompatible usages
> >        of this sub-option value have been
> >        seen limited deployment.
> >   4    DOCSIS Device Class Suboption          [RFC3256]
> >
> >It appears that IANA assigned three DHCP option codes (82-84) when only one
> >DHCP option code was assigned in RFC 3046 (82).
> >
> >Note that an earlier draft of RFC 3046 had a third suboption, "Agent Subnet
> >Mask Sub-option", that was removed prior to RFC publication -- this is why
> >suboption 3 is "reserved". That's why I think option 84 should be part of
> >this IANA cleanup.
> >
> >-- Rich
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg