Re: appropriate code for a GRUB-specific option

[Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>]

On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 10:22:37AM +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
[...]
> > You could use the Vendor Class Identifier (code 60) and Vendor Specific
> > Information (code 43) options with encapsulated vendor-specific options
> > to create a private namespace for grub-specific options.  See sections
> > 8.4 and 9.13 of RFC 2132.
> 
>   That's not acceptable, since code 60 is only for DHCP. We need a
> code which can be used for both BOOTP and DHCP.

Using 99 (or any other unassigned number < 128) is politically most
incorrect because that number might be registered with the IANA in the
future.  Codes 128 ... 254 may have been assigned by the local network
administrator and are not an option for GRUB.  And I'm pretty sure that
the IANA won't reassign the DHCP specific codes (including 60) for BOOTP
because that would make BOOTP and DHCP servers incompatible with each
other (note that there is no separate RFC for BOOTP vendor extension,
it's all in 2132 and its predecessors).

Therefore, 43/60 would be a good choice, IMHO.  If the server does not
understand the `GRUB extension', GRUB has to use a fallback mechanism
anyway, i.e. use a built-in default configuration.  Of course, you could
also follow the procedure outlined in RFC 2132, section 10, and register
a new code for GRUB...

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
===========================================================================
This Mail was sent to netboot mailing list by:
Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>
To get help about this list, send a mail with 'help' as the only string in
it's body to majordomo@baghira.han.de. If you have problems with this list,
send a mail to netboot-owner@baghira.han.de.