Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:54:33 -0700 (MST)

> To: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

> I am unaware of a single example where site-specific options have ever been 
> used.   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.

Microsoft is using more than one "site-specific" IPv4 DHCP options.
Their web pages talk about 252 and you can see 251 if you snoop
on Window ME packets.  

Which is to support the observation that site-specific options are
not used as site specific options.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

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