Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Bernie Volz ((volz))
wrote:
>
>>Our assumption has always been that you need to
configure the DHCP
>>server with this information (and DHCPv6 has no
similar options).
>
>
> True enough. To me this feels like an experimental
RFC, not
> necessarily something that's presently on its way to
full standard.
> If the author is expecting this to appear in relay
agents next week,
> he's deluded, but he's a reasonable guy and I don't get
the
> impression that's what he's expecting.
You're right, Ted. It's not something I need now, but it's
good to be
ahead of the game, eventually, someone is going to want to
use a relay
on a shared network with many subnets, and the ability to do
that (even
if it requires an RFCxxxx-implementing relay) is a good
thing to have.
> Since you can't get an
> option code allocated without writing an RFC, it is
necessary for him
> to write an RFC. I'm assuming that's the motivation.
>
Right again.
> Since we placed that requirement on options allocation,
we are
> obliged to consider drafts like this. I think the
idea has merit,
> and is worth experimentation.
>
Should I post the guts-of-draft I wrote to cover this, do
you think?
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg ietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
|
