Re: [dhcwg] <draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet-selection-03.txt>

At 11:39 AM 10/10/2002, Ralph Droms wrote:
>As I remember, Ted's last sentence reflects the consensus of the dhc WG at the time the subnet selection option was reviewed: the subnet mask is information that the server must be configured with (regardless of whether the subnet selection option is used); sending the subnet mask from the relay agent would be redundant and represent an opportunity for the information from the relay agent and the server to be out of sync.  Thus, the subnet selection option does not include a subnet mask...

        I also remember it exactly this way, and agree wholeheartedly
        with Ted!

        Cheers -- Kim


>- Ralph
>
>At 10:23 AM 10/10/2002 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>Longest prefix matching is only needed if the server allows overlapping subnets (such as 20.0.0.0/8 and 20.1.0/16). If the server doesn't allow this, there is no problem.
>>
>>The ISC DHCP server handles subnet overlaps just fine without the relay agent sending a subnet mask.   Bernie's point about which configuration you trust is the correct rebuttal to this whole line of reasoning, I think.   It would actually be harmful to send a subnet mask in the subnet selection option.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

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

Re: [dhcwg] <draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet-selection-03.txt> - Classfull ?