[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dhcwg] Bit in "flags" field indicating option overflow?
Any reason not to allow a message size > MTU (with a strong admonition not
to do so unless really, really necessary)?
- Ralph
At 09:54 PM 10/16/2003 -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
In general, clients really should send max-message-size options every
time. It is unfortunate that they don't. I think that if RFC2131 were
updated, it would be worthwhile to *require* (SHOULD) that the client send
this option, and that they send a message size that is the MTU of the
network interface being configured.
</blockquote></x-html>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg