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

John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2002 17:43 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 NAA26986 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g99Hivg06263 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:44:57 -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 g99Hivv06260 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:44:57 -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 NAA26970 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:42:46 -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 g99Hg7v06144; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:42:07 -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 g99Hcuv05964 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:38:56 -0400
Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26789 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:36:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com [171.69.11.151]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g99HVLIm012467; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nisser.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g99HVKtr024942; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JSCHNIZL-W2K1.cisco.com (rtp-vpn1-9.cisco.com [10.82.224.9]) by nisser.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id KAA26156; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021009132649.018c3f00@wells.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jschnizl@wells.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:31:16 -0400
To: "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>
From: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and 83.
Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBCD94@entmaexch02.broad band.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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>

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