RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tenta tively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942
"Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com> Fri, 20 May 2005 15:42 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DZ9dT-0007lh-0W; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:42:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DZ9dQ-0007ka-Dh for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:42:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29703 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:41:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chimera.incognito.com ([206.172.52.66]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DZ9un-0005Od-C6 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 May 2005 11:59:58 -0400
Received: from [206.172.52.116] (helo=HOMER.incognito.com.) by chimera.incognito.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DZ9dB-0006bO-TR; Fri, 20 May 2005 08:41:46 -0700
Received: by homer.incognito.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <L1MFJSPM>; Fri, 20 May 2005 08:41:15 -0700
Message-ID: <B34580038487494C8B7F36DA06160B87022BF222@homer.incognito.com>
From: "Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com>
To: "'Bernie Volz (volz)'" <volz@cisco.com>, "Kostur, Andre" <akostur@incognito.com>, peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tenta tively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:41:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-Spam-Score: -5.8 (-----)
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, iana@iana.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0704167509=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Isn't that the point of 124/125? The client sends in 124 with all of the vendor IDs it's interested in/supports, and a 3925 aware server would key off of that (instead of 60) to choose what to fill 125 with? -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:29 AM One thing that isn't as clear as it could be in RFC 3925 is how a client communication interested in a certain vendor option set. Part of the reason for this is that it really is up to each vendor to determine that. But that does make it more difficult for server vendors to provide appropriate triggers. Likely most servers will require you to classify the incoming request in some way and then the options configured for that class are returned. A common trigger for this might be option 60.
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please… Kostur, Andre
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please… Kostur, Andre
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please… Kostur, Andre