Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Sat, 26 January 2002 13:18 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 IAA06401 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:18:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA20723 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:18:10 -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 IAA20563; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:05:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA20540 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:05:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06252 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:05:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0QD4Bt07404; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:04:11 -0500
Message-Id: <200201261304.g0QD4Bt07404@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
cc: 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> of "Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:34:39 CST." <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDEF@EAMBUNT705>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:04:11 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
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
> To my recollection and quick browsing of the -22 draft, I do not > recall us ever carving out a portion of the option space for > "private" (site-specific?) options. According to RFC 2434 terminology, I think what you are asking about is Private Use options: Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA to review such assignments and assignments are not generally useful for interoperability. Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header lines in email messages. Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> writes: > I am unaware of a single example where site-specific options have ever been > used. I assume you mean as defined above. If this is the case, DHCPv6 would't seem to need them! Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> writes: > Microsoft is using more than one "site-specific" IPv4 DHCP options. > Their web pages talk about 252 and you can see 251 if you snoop > on Window ME packets. This is not what I would call "Private Use". If a vendor ships a product with values hard-wired in, there is the risk of name-space collisions. In such cases, it would seem better to assign option values from the global pool. Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> writes: > We shouldn't allow people to request option codes from the IANA if they > haven't published a draft, but I think it's safe to relax the restrictions > to the extent that if a draft exists, an option code can be assigned > without the draft going to last call. This utterly draconian > requirementis only justified by the extremely small number of option codes > available in DHCPv4. There are a number of reasons why you might not want to assign an option code until the spec is done, but they may not apply in all cases. Giving out numbers to anyone almost guarantees that some will be assigned and never used. In some cases (i.e., DHCv4) this is a problem. In others (DHCPv6?) probably not. Giving out numbers too early runs the risk of having vendors implement/ship from an early draft, and then the WG may have to deal with the problem of not being able to redefine the option the way it wants because of deployed systems. That has happened in this WG. Giving out numbers without any review runs the risk that someone will reinvent an existing option, possibly badly. Hasn't that happened with DHCPv4 before? One might argue that withholding the assignment of a code point would be incentive for a WG to finish the critical IDs and turn them into RFCs, so that getting the option code assigned would still happen relatively quickly. But, I no longer argue that, based on what I've seen in some WGs. :-( How serious the above problems are depends on the protocol, the scarcity of option codes, the history of the community :-), etc. Thomas _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Josh Littlefield
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Josh Littlefield
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] client unicast/client unicast option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Incorporation of WG last call comment… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes Thomas Narten
- Re: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal a… Thomas Narten
- Re: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal a… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Rapid Commit Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: movement detection and Con… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: movement detection and Con… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Interface-ID option Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: movement detection and Con… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: movement detection and Con… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] status of draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHC… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-droms-dhcp-relay… Thomas Narten