Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie

Expanding on Ted's theme a little - if we're going to consider extensions to
DHCP that can automate the process of configuring the DHCP server, we ought
to take a little time to consider other, similar extensions and define them
all at once rather than one at a time...

- Ralph

On 3/9/07 2:38 PM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2007, at 4:50 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> This is a very valid question: reading back though the archives, it
>> looks like it's one of the things which was worying Ted Lemon about
>> the
>> netmask sub-option. (I think: Ted can, of course, correct me if I've
>> second-guessed him wrong here.)
> 
> My personal feeling on the relay agent subnet mask issue is that I
> don't see any reason why we shouldn't just specify a list of subnets
> that are valid on the client's link, in the same format as the
> classless static routes option, rather than doing the incomplete
> solution of simply providing a subnet mask that implies a prefix
> based on the relay agent's IP address.   I think that that solution
> has limited utility, and in the single-subnet case providing a CSR-
> like option to specify the one prefix that's valid on the link isn't
> going to add more than three or four bytes as compared to sending
> just the subnet mask.
> 
> I have minimal recollection of the debate over the subnet mask option
> way back when - that's been a very long time ago now.   I don't think
> we could meaningfully use any recollections I have to inform this
> discussion... :'}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg