Subject: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12.txt> (Subnet Allocation Option) to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:39:25 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Subnet Allocation Option'
  <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-06-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document defines a new DHCP option which is passed between the
   DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic allocation of a
   subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated, and report usage
   statistics.  This memo documents the current usage of the option in
   agreement with [RFC3942], which declares that any pre-existing usages
   of option numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the
   working group will try to officially assign those numbers to those
   options.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

   http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/811/

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:29:54 +0200

I have read parts of the document and I find it ok.

> The DHCP Server SHOULD allocate a subnet with prefix size less than
> or equal to the size P specified in the request.  In other words, a
> subnet at least the size requested and possibly bigger.

I agree, but "prefix size less than or equal to the size P" is not very
clear, because (1) there is no "P" in the request but "Prefix", "size"
is hard to understand, etc.  Maybe it should say "the length of the
allocated prefix should have a value non-zero and less than or equal to
value Prefix in the Request; e.g. if the Request demands a prefix of
length 4 the response MUST be of length any of 1, 2, 3 or 4".

There is another point which I think is not discussed in this draft.
Contrary to allocation of an address, always the Relay and sometimes the
Server _must_ update their forwarding/routing tables, according to a
specific rule [subnet,IPaddress], when this allocation of a subnet
prefix is performed - otherwise packet forwarding won't work (packets
don't reach the Host allocated an address from this prefix).

typo " qis " on page 4.

Alex

Le 08/06/2011 15:39, The IESG a écrit :
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration
> WG (dhc) to consider the following document: - 'Subnet Allocation
> Option' <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12.txt>  as an Informational
> RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive
> comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-06-22.
> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In
> either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow
> automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> agreement with [RFC3942], which declares that any pre-existing
> usages of option numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented
> and the working group will try to officially assign those numbers to
> those options.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing
> list [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>