option 116 and 249

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

option 116 and 249

Sanjeev Verma
Hi,
  Are these two options - 116 and 249 - standardized? I assume 249 is
not but perhaps 116 is. Can someone point out the RFC for it.
thanks,
Sanjeev.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: option 116 and 249

Andre Kostur-2
Sanjeev Verma wrote:
> Hi,
>   Are these two options - 116 and 249 - standardized? I assume 249 is
> not but perhaps 116 is. Can someone point out the RFC for it.
> thanks,
>  

Option 116 - RFC 2563

Option 249 - Not defined by RFC.. appears to have been used in the past
for Classless Static Routes (which is now option 121, RFC 3442)

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: option 116 and 249

Van Aken Dirk
In reply to this post by Sanjeev Verma
Option 249 (= Option 121) is implemented in Microsoft XP ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of
> Andre Kostur
> Sent: donderdag 19 januari 2006 20:21
> To: Sanjeev Verma
> Cc: dhcwg
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] option 116 and 249
>
> Sanjeev Verma wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   Are these two options - 116 and 249 - standardized? I assume 249
is
> > not but perhaps 116 is. Can someone point out the RFC for it.
> > thanks,
> >
>
> Option 116 - RFC 2563
>
> Option 249 - Not defined by RFC.. appears to have been used in the
past
> for Classless Static Routes (which is now option 121, RFC 3442)
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg