rgrimes added a comment.
I have done some more digging, in rfc3492 section 4 the ietf has reclassified options: 4. Reclassifying Options The site-specific option codes 128 to 223 are hereby reclassified as publicly defined options. This leaves 31 site-specific options, 224 to 254. Interestingly this rfc is by Cisco! Found the list, these are in the domain of Iana now, so you have to go to https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml to find them. Which leads you to rfc5859. Reading that RFC is causing me to say something un popular here. We should be using option 150 as an IP addresses, and NOT using option 66 because we can not do hostname resolution. The reasons that Cisco request option 150 was partly based on that. Does the code even request option 66 from the server? Or do we just expect an sname filled in? I read some of the Intel pxe 2.1 spec and they don't even mention option 66 in there list of options, yet the refer to it several times at the sname line of data structures. I have also run accross conflicts in what vendors say go in option 66, some even saying that it is an address. The RFC's and Cisco clearly state that it should be treated as a name and that you need name resolution avaliable if you are going to use it. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10485 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: kczekirda, bapt, oshogbo, tsoome, sbruno, #network, freebsd-net-list, imp Cc: rgrimes, garga, ler, asomers _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
