Subject: RE: Discussion: sharing options/extensions between DHCPv4 and DHC Pv6

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:06 -0400

My proposal was not to use these same options number - since the data is
different. Reusing the "domain name" option is fine since the option is
"identical". But, reusing the default router option with an IPv6 instead of
IPv4 option is, IMHO, not fine. So, I would not be for this.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:31 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: Discussion: sharing options/extensions between DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6

> Summary: Bernie described certain DHCPv4 options as carrying
> version-independent parameters such as domain names and URLs.  Any
> option carrying an IP address would *not* fit into this category.
> Such options would use the same option number and data format for both
> DHCpv4 and DHCPv6 (although the option format would be different to
> allow for 16-bit option codes and lengths in DHCPv6).

I thought we were going to keep the options that have the same meaning
but whose contents are IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4 addresses the
same as well.   Is there any reason not to?

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:00:22 -0700

> IPv4 option is, IMHO, not fine. So, I would not be for this.

There are so few options for which the contents are exactly identical
that I don't think there's any purpose in specifying this if we
exclude options containing IP addresses.   If we are going to exclude
those, I would say just let the two option code spaces be completely
orthogonal.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:03:48 -0700

[Bernie]
> > IPv4 option is, IMHO, not fine. So, I would not be for this.

[Ted]
> those, I would say just let the two option code spaces be completely

...I agree: if and only if the format of the option, as well as the
interpretation of values is identical should we reuse the option code value,
and maybe even the option name to avoid confusion about the interpretation
of the data values...

--Barr