RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Wed, 23 January 2002 23:06 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 SAA28853 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA22474 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:06:53 -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 SAA22114; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:00:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22080 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:00:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28740 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:00:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([64.170.119.193]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GQE00LLPYKEVM@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:59:18 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes
In-reply-to: <05B2A5F1-0FFE-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
To: Dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNMEJFDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> -----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