Support for Option 66 - HTTPs

[pmoore]

Hi Guys,

I was wondering if there is going to be an option for HTTPS support with option 66, I am looking at deploying IP centrix based services with the SPA5xx series but for auto provisioing of devices I need to populate the provisoning address option 66 gives me this if I use the SRP5xx series I am limited to tftp, I actually need HTTPS as it allows me security and full path i.e /xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/default/centrix/default.MA$.cfg, the tftp option does not allow path names so limits my use of the srp5xx range for SMB deployments.

Regards

Phil Moore

[Andrew Hickman]

Hi Phil,

This is available now on the SRP540 - you can enter any URL in the manual option 66 field.

This field is currently limited to IP address only on the SRP520 at this time.

Cheers

Andy

[pmoore]

Thanks Andy, I take it then it will be available in a futre release to be determined at a later date based on priorities :) ,

[David Harper · Accepted solution]

Hi Phil,

Another option (forgive the pun) is to use a different DHCP option - eg 159 or 160, and specify the URL there.  The SRP supports both of these.  Is there any reason why these wouldn't work for you?

Cheers,

Dave.

[pmoore]

Thanks Dave, not sure if that will fit in with my current provisioning directory structure but to be honest I kind of had tunnel vision and normally just use 66 so pretty much over looked it, will take a look and see how we go,

[pmoore]

Hi Dave,

Excellent It does work for me now using those options thanks for that, didn't see the woods for the trees :), will run a few tests now to see if this will affect my deployment models but looks good so far, would like to see it as part of option 66 though if the 547 will do it would be good to keep consistant across platforms.

[David Harper]

Even with support in the router for a URL in option 66, I must admit I'm a bit reluctant to push that approach.  The routers and phones are fine with it, but the problem is that there are lots of devices from all sorts of different vendors that use option 66, and I'm always nervous that there will be one that decides to crash or reboot when it receives a URL.  Using one of the other options also has a small side benefit in that those option 66 capable devices then aren't trying to download configs from your voice provisioning server.  The use of options 159/160 is much less common, and so you will likely have fewer devices that try to hassle your provisioning server.

That's just my personal prejudices at play though - there's no really strong reason not to use option 66.  It's all about having lots of tools in the toolbox.

Cheers,

Dave.

[pmoore]

Can see where your coming from and looking at it from that perspective you make very valid points, once again I am probably looking at this from a tunnel vison aspect where I have a deployment model that will be used for Voice deployments only with Cisco products, but with these other dhcp options it does give me some deployment models to think about , I can certainly understand your thoughts though and can see how this would could be problamatic.

One one comment would be though is I do like to see commonality of settings across platforms so if supported in the 54x would be good to see across the 52x

[Andrew Hickman]

We like consistency too Phil - expect much closer alignment later this year....

Andy