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

"Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com> Wed, 09 October 2002 17:14 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 NAA26062 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:14:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g99HGMp04570 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:16:22 -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 g99HGMv04567 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:16:22 -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 NAA26055 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:14:12 -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 g99HDSv04470; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:13:30 -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 g99HAtv04400 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:10:55 -0400
Received: from peacock.tci.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25845 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mms01-relaya.tci.com (mms01-relaya.broadband.att.com [147.191.90.228]) by peacock.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g99H8Bgl019397; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:10:48 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from 147.191.89.201 by mms01-relaya.tci.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:07:56 -0600
X-Server-Uuid: 90826C58-91B0-45EB-95A5-46B6D42E456F
Received: by entexchimc02.tci.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <41CH17RR>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:10:40 -0600
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBCD94@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>
To: "'Kostur, Andre'" <Andre@incognito.com>, "'Van Aken Dirk'" <VanAkenD@thmulti.com>, "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
cc: "Dedecker Hans" <DedeckerH@thmulti.com>, "Dekeyser Miek" <DekeyserM@thmulti.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and 83.
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:10:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 11BABDE6221063-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kostur, Andre [mailto:Andre@incognito.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:53 AM
To: 'Van Aken Dirk'; 'dhcwg@ietf.org'
Cc: Dedecker Hans; Dekeyser Miek
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and
83.


I wonder if 83 was previously mentioned in a draft somewhere.  However, RFC
3046 is authoritative on this matter, and option 82 is the one to look at.
82 currently has 2 defined sub-options (and I know of 2 or 3 more that are
currently in draft)
-----Original Message----- 
From: Van Aken Dirk [mailto:VanAkenD@thmulti.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:27 AM 
To: 'dhcwg@ietf.org' 
Cc: Dedecker Hans; Dekeyser Miek 
Subject: [dhcwg] Conflicting information regarding DHCP options 82 and 
83. 


Hello DHCP Working Group, 
I have some conflicting information regarding the DHCP options defined 
below. i.e. On the IANA bootp-dhcp parameter list ( 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters ) I see the following 
options: 
   82      Agent Circuit ID         N    Agent Circuit ID 
   83      Agent Remote ID          N    Agent Remote ID 
On the other hand RFC3046 mentions the following": 
>>>> 
2.0 Relay Agent Information Option 
   This document defines a new DHCP Option called the Relay Agent 
   Information Option.  It is a "container" option for specific agent- 
   supplied sub-options.  The format of the Relay Agent Information 
   option is: 
          Code   Len     Agent Information Field 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
         |  82  |   N  |  i1  |  i2  |  i3  |  i4  |      |  iN  | 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
   The length N gives the total number of octets in the Agent 
   Information Field.  The Agent Information field consists of a 
   sequence of SubOpt/Length/Value tuples for each sub-option, encoded 
   in the following manner: 
          SubOpt  Len     Sub-option Value 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
         |  1   |   N  |  s1  |  s2  |  s3  |  s4  |      |  sN  | 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
          SubOpt  Len     Sub-option Value 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
         |  2   |   N  |  i1  |  i2  |  i3  |  i4  |      |  iN  | 
         +------+------+------+------+------+------+--...-+------+ 
   No "pad" sub-option is defined, and the Information field shall NOT 
   be terminated with a 255 sub-option.  The length N of the DHCP Agent 
   Information Option shall include all bytes of the sub-option 
   code/length/value tuples.  Since at least one sub-option must be 
   defined, the minimum Relay Agent Information length is two (2).  The 
   length N of the sub-options shall be the number of octets in only 
   that sub-option's value field.  A sub-option length may be zero.  The 
   sub-options need not appear in sub-option code order. 
   The initial assignment of DHCP Relay Agent Sub-options is as follows: 
                 DHCP Agent              Sub-Option Description 
                 Sub-option Code 
                 ---------------         ---------------------- 
                     1                   Agent Circuit ID Sub-option 
                     2                   Agent Remote ID Sub-option 
>>>> 
So I wonder now if DHCP option 82 refers to the DHCP Relay Information 
option for which there are defined two sub-options (1: Agent Circuit ID 
Sub-option and 2:                Agent Remote ID Sub-option"). 
Or do I misunderstand something here ? 
Thanks in advance - Dirk 


Dirk Van Aken                              THOMSON multimedia Broadband 
Belgium NV 
System Architect                           Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, 
Tel. : 03/443.65.08                        2650 Edegem 
Fax.: 03/443.66.32                         Belgium 
vanakend@thmulti.com 


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

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