Subject: [dhcwg] RE: draft-jang-dhc-haopt-00.txt

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:33:37 -0400

Hi. In preparing for the DHC WG meeting I have the following comments on
draft-jang-dhc-haopt-00.txt:

In DHCPv6 we use 16-bit option (and suboption) codes and lengths. It would
be best if this draft switched to using 16-bit fields for the sub-option and
length fields. Please see RFC 3315 and section 22.17. Note also that for
some forms of identification/authentication (opaque type), it is conceivable
that it might exceed a length of 255 bytes!

Also, with a 16-bit option number space, we've got plenty of option number
space and it might be best to drop the Home Agent Discovery Option and
simply make the two sub-options regular options? Or, is there a reason you'd
prefer having sub-options?

For the Home Network Information Sub-option, I assume that if multiple
addresses (or prefixes) are specified, the A, reserved, prefix-length and
address/prefix fields are all repeated (18 bytes/address). It might be good
to specify this?

- Bernie

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

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:38:00 -0700

Hi Bernie,

Thank you for the review and feedback.

> be best if this draft switched to using 16-bit fields for the
sub-option
> and

We will fix that.

> prefer having sub-options?

Nothing other than clumping the related information together. We can
split the options if this is the preferred way. 

> address/prefix fields are all repeated (18 bytes/address). It might be

Yes, that's the intent. We'll add more text to clarify this.

Thanks again.

Alper