RE: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

One other issue related to the DHCPv6 option space ...

To my recollection and quick browsing of the -22 draft, I do not recall us ever carving out a
portion of the option space for "private" (site-specific?) options.

Should we say that options numbers 32768 to 65535 are reserved for "private" (site-specific?) options. This is a fairly large space, but then again if we have 32767 defined options we'd likely need very large packets to communicate them all. 

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:50 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

There is a potential collision problem between DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 option 
codes.  The DHCID RR uses the option code to identify the source of the 
information stored in the RR.  If DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 use overlapping option 
codes that identify different options, the source of the information in the 
RR will be ambiguous.  One proposed solution is to start numbering DHCPv6 
options at 256, to avoid collisions with DHCPv4 option codes.  Another 
solution is to assign new codes for the identification field in the DHCID 
RR, which then identify DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 options - or, perhaps other 
sources of information not encoded in a DHCP option.  For example, DHCID RR 
code 1 might identify the contents of the RR as a DHCPv4 client identifier, 
while DHCID RR code 2 might indicate a DHCPv6 DUID.  Comments on the two 
solutions?

- Ralph

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