RE: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942

["Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Peter.
 
I assume your usage of these option numbers has nothing to do with PXE.
 
Regarding the I-D, yes it would be useful to have that. But as there are
conflicting uses of these option numbers, moving away from their use is
highly recommended. So, it is up to you.
 
The I-D would be to document the existing usage.
 
If you make use of the RFC 3925 vendor options going forward, that would
mean you would not need to standardize the new options via the IETF.
 
Yes, there will be a list. I am waiting until early June to compile that
as I wanted to give people until the end of May to respond. I expect to
send it to IANA and hopefully they'll publish that on the DHCPv4 options
page.
 
This list will primarily indicate the options that are in use, but I
don't expect to give details of the data format, etc. That is what
future I-Ds will hopefully do. 
 
- Bernie


________________________________

	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of [e-mail]
	Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:10 PM
	To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on
"Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942
	
	
	
	[ sorry, resend to add a subject for tracking...  please ignore
previous ] 
	
	Hello DHC WG and IANA, 
	
	Regarding RFC 3942, this is to document our (Mitel Networks) use
of DHCP options 128-135 in the current vendor-specific range, and to
request these be placed on the "Tentatively Assigned"  list. 
	
	Our usage is as follows.  All are related to configuration of IP
Phones (and similar devices) in a VoIP network. 
	
	Option    Usage 
	======    ===== 
	128       TFPT Server IP address (for IP Phone - specific sw
load) 
	129       Call Server IP address 
	130       Discrimination string (to identify vendor) 
	131       Remote statistics server IP address 
	132       802.1P VLAN ID 
	133       802.1Q L2 Priority 
	134       Diffserv Code Point 
	135       HTTP Proxy for phone-specific applications 
	
	
	Please confirm that these will go on the Tentatively Assigned
list (or perhaps some already are). 
	
	Also, it is not completely clear whether an I-D documenting this
same information is or is not required.  We are currently looking at
getting away from this scheme, in favor of better defined / standardized
vendor-specific methods.  Given this, and the high likelihood of clashes
over the same options wanted for use by others, we do not currently
intend to pursue standardization of these options.  Is an I-D required
to complete the process of putting the options on the Tentatively
Assigned list?   
	
	While we're on it, is there already, or will there be, a
definitive list of all the options in Tentatively Assigned state?   
	
	Regards, 
	Peter Blatherwick 
	Sr. Solutions Architect, 
	Mitel Networks 
	

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg