Subject: Re: subnet allocation request

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:28:08 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>

> At some point after submission of this draft, it was decided that this
> functionality should be better taken up by the DHCP WG, and I believe the
> draft was left to expire. To date, I don't believe anyone else has made such
> a request in this group or the DHCP group, but I would like confirmation
> that this is the correct history regarding this draft before I take the time
> to draw one up myself.
> ...

I really hope the proposed draft is for DHCP and not PPP.

PPP stands for "point-to-point."   It makes *NO SENSE* to talk about blocks
of IP addresses in the context of a point-to-point link.  To points need
at most 2 IP addresses.  It is *WRONG* to stuff all of the upper layers
in the link layer, including routing (e.g. this IP block allocating),
naming (e.g. the Microsoft DNS server mistake), and the rest of the kitchen
sink.  That PPP and IPCP have extension mechanisms no excuse for using
them for things that have nothing to do with PPP or the IP link between
a pair of peers.   It might be ok to jam unrelated stuff into PPP if there
were no available (not to mention at least as convenient) alternatives.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Karl Fox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:20:13 -0400

Hi Randy,

Vernon is right--the consensus of this working group has long been that such 
upper layer features belong in DHCP, which is designed to handle exactly 
this sort of thing.

Karl Fox
PPPEXT Working Group Chair

>Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Key fingerprint = 5B15 7260 D55E D680 0B93  4953 8A3B AB0E C05D 77A3