ughh. sorry know of three production servers in use Lucent, HP, and Linux version. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:16 AM > To: Bernie Volz (volz) > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Iljitsch van Beijnum; ipv6@ietf.org; > Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit > > On May 27, 2005, at 6:18 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > > These changes would potentially cause some issues with any > deployments > > today because the clients and servers do not support this "new" > > behavior, but it that's why it is critical we work this out ASAP. > > However, those clients, if they use the M & O bits, could continue > > to do > > what they do today -- since both bits are available. It is just new > > clients with old servers that may have issues. > > I may not have a full sense of the market, but FWIW I don't get the > impression that backwards compatibility for servers is a huge issue > at the moment. So a simplifying change at this point would be a > good thing. There have certainly been times in the past when we've > regretted our failure to make simplifying changes in the DHCP > protocol back when it wasn't widely deployed. (Or at least > I have - > I can't really speak for other members of the wg.) > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
