Re: SMTP option for DHCPv6

On 5/27/2005 11:47 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:

> So perhaps we should not bother defining SMTP option for DHCPv6 at all
> and just go ahead and do it under proper name.

> Same for DHCPv4 if SMTP option is not much used, it should possibly be 
> depreciated and replaced by SUBMIT.

Well that's fine, and probably appropriate.

But renaming it won't fix any of the problems that I described earlier,
and it certainly won't change the short answer either. I mean, clients
still aren't likely to use it directly (and still won't be able to do so
if the port is locked and bound).

And I hesitate to mention this, but at some point somebody needs to look
at beefing up the algorithm so that it is more than a simple array of
unordered addresses. There should be preference-flagging capabilities,
fall-back ordering, and other such mechanisms which are standardized so
that clients implement them consistently (lack of consistency in
processing means Client-A will come up with a different answer than
Client-B, with the operator having no control). I wouldn't worry about
that with this, but its something that needs to be done if there is going
to be significant effort at reinvigorating this technology.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/