[dhcwg] Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4-routed-prefix-00
Brendon Drew <brendon@drewnet.com.au> Wed, 12 August 2026 07:55 UTC
Return-Path: <brendon@drewnet.com.au>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC96C12866686 for <dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1786521345; bh=q3LYfzkN663T7H+vWMlcNAx3bEHPHbKHrY91GAa03Oc=; h=Date:From:Subject:To; b=MteRx+nU2k5Owt6Pl6ePAcOmewkfsjVKiFtOZE9PkFcpggoKRI6H3T26/UOasQbQY K99Psl2m+G1nHGO+RawBpm++o1pul97L34yseiKqnnTiJVg5gcDpttfmuqWXMEwSXP saUClMzwL/DhlSpk54JM5s04s4EnZSE432TuY5w4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=drewnet.com.au
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cvj9XemtUVYw for <dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bravoict.net (mail.bravoict.net [180.150.96.103]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0137412866681 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id ACBDE32C5699 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:55:33 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drewnet.com.au; s=dkim; t=1786521334; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; bh=q3LYfzkN663T7H+vWMlcNAx3bEHPHbKHrY91GAa03Oc=; b=hA8wMaZaGsDQCfus7Tft1KQvIsssnOmUzz4BuoXaDDGETixmv8JjMWCKhuIng8oAm1s4X5 /Epqjegr568sc/U7kVi/LAB768jmjpoQJ2EwJNw8wX8ZrtD3AmXUyaB2x2bqMeb14+03P9 uPSifniYI+rmSwJOGLe3J624jyV2/4KQYwjgfW7/R4wqdSytLccEvRR3nqsnd1VvjcAIdX vxfy1ZEBfrLjiDWde0KlV5KsgpQ0c78XWNjhOOtxOCiE5IL89Bl/j7B9Bng74eqjZ55WV3 SZfeqA6siYBW4F5+ZhKe6VPvaX/C0vpXLOQxFIhp5vXSo/hU5s64hq6Qv/xTeQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:55:32 +1000
From: Brendon Drew <brendon@drewnet.com.au>
Thread-Topic: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4-routed-prefix-00
Message-ID: <DCAD6EE4-FA40-6F4F-8B58-F17F21183BCA@hxcore.ol>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3
Message-ID-Hash: V6XXSXV3TO64YWKSLVWB24HSRSNPKZ3S
X-Message-ID-Hash: V6XXSXV3TO64YWKSLVWB24HSRSNPKZ3S
X-MailFrom: brendon@drewnet.com.au
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dhcwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [dhcwg] Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4-routed-prefix-00
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group <dhcwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/1iSvnbuhQhmeiYuAZYTkP4nJ0Vo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dhcwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-leave@ietf.org>
Hi all,
I've recently submitted an individual Internet-Draft, draft-drew-dhc-v4-routed-prefix-00, defining a DHCPv4 option for communicating IPv4 prefixes that are routed toward the requesting router.
The draft is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drew-dhc-v4-routed-prefix/
The motivating use case is an ISP subscriber connection where the CPE receives an ordinary attachment address, potentially from the CGNAT shared address space, while one or more separate public IPv4 prefixes are routed toward that subscriber.
The intention is to provide a generic way for the DHCP server to communicate, in effect, "this prefix is routed toward you", without requiring the routed prefix to be treated as an on-link subnet or used as the DHCP-assigned interface address.
I would particularly appreciate feedback on:
- Whether there is existing DHCP functionality or prior work that already addresses this use case.
- Whether the proposed option encoding is appropriate.
- The proposed client and server behaviour.
- Any operational, interoperability, or security issues I have overlooked.
- Whether this work is appropriate for discussion within DHC, or would be better handled elsewhere within the IETF.
This is my first Internet-Draft, so I am very much treating -00 as the start of the discussion rather than a finished proposal.
Thanks in advance for any review or comments.
Regards,
Brendon Drew
- [dhcwg] Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4-rou… Brendon Drew
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Christian Giese
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Brendon Drew
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Michael Richardson
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Li HUANG
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Michael Richardson
- [dhcwg] Re: Request for review: draft-drew-dhc-v4… Michael Richardson