<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Chris Buxton wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>I have to ask, why do you want this? A relay agent typically unicasts requests back to the DHCP server, rather than broadcasting to the next relay.</div></span></blockquote><br></div><div>There are good reasons to use this; in some cases the ability to have two relay agents provide information to the server can save a lot of configuration hassles. There's a draft being developed in the DHC working group to standardize this behavior; the standard way, however, will not involve sending multiple option 82 fields. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation-00.txt">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation-00.txt</a></div><div><br></div><br></body></html>