Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-01.txt

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:15:48 -0500

Regarding draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-01.txt, how do people feel about the

suggestion of using ONE option to carry both options, using the

following format?

                        1 1 1 1 1 1

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |  option-code  |  option-len   |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |       enterprise-number       |

   |                               |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |   class-len   |               |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   class-data  |

   /                               /

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |  subopt-len   |               |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  subopt-data  |

   /                               /

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Of course, one or both class-len and subopt-len could be 0.

In general, a client may send the option with a class and possibly

suboptions and a server would generally just send suboptions (unless

we felt it best to have the server echo back the class information).

The advantages are:

- Only a single DHCPv4 option is used (not two).

- The enterprise-number needs only to appear once (not twice) if both

the class and information options are needed.

- Bernie