Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet MaskSub-optiondie

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:21:34 -0400

If there is a draft to consider, by all means I will (and the DHC WG
should) consider it.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:57 AM
To: DHC WG
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: Fwd: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet
MaskSub-optiondie

On Mar 19, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
> Our assumption has always been that you need to configure the DHCP
> server with this information (and DHCPv6 has no similar options).

True enough.   To me this feels like an experimental RFC, not  
necessarily something that's presently on its way to full standard.    
If the author is expecting this to appear in relay agents next week,  
he's deluded, but he's a reasonable guy and I don't get the  
impression that's what he's expecting.   Since you can't get an  
option code allocated without writing an RFC, it is necessary for him  
to write an RFC.   I'm assuming that's the motivation.

Since we placed that requirement on options allocation, we are  
obliged to consider drafts like this.   I think the idea has merit,  
and is worth experimentation.

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:23:57 +0100

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:56:52 +0100

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:31:06 +0From [email-masked] Tue Mar 27 09:31:47 2007

---

From: Simon Kelley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:51:39 +0100

Ted Lemon wrote:
> impression that's what he's expecting. 

You're right, Ted. It's not something I need now, but it's good to be 
ahead of the game, eventually, someone is going to want to use a relay 
on a shared network with many subnets, and the ability to do that (even 
if it requires an RFCxxxx-implementing relay) is a good thing to have.

> Since you can't get an  
Right again.

> and is worth experimentation.

Should  I post the guts-of-draft I wrote to cover this, do you think?

Cheers,

Simon.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:44:10 -0500

On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> You're right, Ted. It's not something I need now, but it's good to  
> be ahead of the game, eventually, someone is going to want to use a  
> relay on a shared network with many subnets, and the ability to do  
> that (even if it requires an RFCxxxx-implementing relay) is a good  
> thing to have.

Back up a sec here.   There is existing practice of doing shared  
networks through relays.   The current practice is that servers are  
configured to know which subnets are on the same wire, and the relay  
agent IP address is used to figure out which wire the client is on;  
once this determination is made, the client may be allocated an IP  
address from any subnet that's valid on that wire.

So you should be careful when talking about this - if all you need is  
shared network through relay, we already have it.   What your  
proposal adds is automatic network configuration detection.   So  
you'd better actually want that, or else you're going through a lot  
of trouble to get something that's easy enough to get without that work.

> Should  I post the guts-of-draft I wrote to cover this, do you think?

I think maybe you should try to advance your draft with CSR-style  
subnet specifications as experimental, and see what happens.