RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 04:38
>
> I am unaware of a single example where site-specific options have
> ever been used.
>
... many "thin clients" such as Wyse used those option numbers for their
configuration.  Of course, that is really "vendor-specific" and not
"site-specific" but it still is the same number range (128-254).


> This is why I think it's better not to put language about
> reserved portions of the option space in the base draft - I think
> we need to figure out what we want to do carefully.   Is it really
> site-specific that we want?
>     What about vendor-specific?   What about user-defined?  If you
> want to reserve any space in the draft, I would just call the
> reserved space "experimental" rather than being specific about who
> can use it.  Reserving 4096 codes is probably plenty, though, as you
> say - I don't think we need 32k.
>
...and I agree that "experimental" or "not defined by RFC" or some similar
title is appropriate, as well as a reasonably small space such as 4096
codes.

--Barr


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg