Re: [dhcwg] DHCP & option 43 and option 55 (RFC 2132)
Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com> Thu, 14 February 2002 09:59 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 EAA14429 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:59:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA19562 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:59:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA17605; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA17586 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gw.xargs.com (Bessie@dsl.xargs.com [209.239.242.114]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA13889 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:16:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 24423 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 09:16:28 -0000
Received: from gw.xargs.com (milder@192.168.11.1) by gw.xargs.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 09:16:28 -0000
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:16:28 -0800
From: Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com>
X-X-Sender: <shadows@gw.xargs.com>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP & option 43 and option 55 (RFC 2132)
In-Reply-To: <9CBA35009A10D61192500040A5B1C8AA011DF9C9@margo>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202140113150.16669-100000@gw.xargs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
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
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Girgis George wrote: > Regarding RFC 2132 , option 55 (Parameter request list) and option 43 > (vendor class identifier) > > Is there any relation between the length field for option 55 and option 43 > ? The parameter request list would just include that tag in its list so yes there is a relation but it's the same with any other option tag. I'm not entirely sure why you would _request_ a vendor specific option. It would seem to me that the client or the server would simply handle it when it comes in or ignore it. -- Thamer Al-Harbash http://www.whitefang.com/dhcp-agent/ cvs commit -m "unb0rk() now uses stdarg;" _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] DHCP & option 43 and option 55 (RFC 2132) Girgis George
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP & option 43 and option 55 (RFC 2… Thamer Al-Harbash
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP & option 43 and option 55 (RFC 2… Ted Lemon