Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
"David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org> Thu, 08 March 2007 18:06 UTC
Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPN0d-0003Pm-Er; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:06:35 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPN0c-0003Pg-Mk for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:06:34 -0500
Received: from goliath.isc.org ([2001:4f8:3:bb::72]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPN0Y-0001pr-Vb for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:06:34 -0500
Received: by goliath.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10200) id 717AB5A6C7; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:06:02 -0800
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
Message-ID: <20070308180602.GB26203@isc.org>
References: <45EDD246.20605@thekelleys.org.uk> <403B5316AD7A254C9024875BAE481D4E6C314F@zeus.incognito.com> <45EDDE8C.1090704@thekelleys.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <45EDDE8C.1090704@thekelleys.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0723199606=="
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:35:08PM +0000, Simon Kelley wrote: > The Agent Subnet mask would provide the needed information and make > configuration for remote networks work in the same way as for local > networks. This would make my life easier because my users would no > longer omit netmask information and wonder why their DHCP doesn't work. Except that some DHCPv4 relays do not have addresses on the networks they are relaying...so they don't have this knowledge. Some don't set giaddr, but do provide the relay agent option. So a subsequent relay agent that does set giaddr would be disallowed from placing their own relay agent option in the packet and couldn't deliver the subnet mask if they had it... Some do set giaddr (to an address on a different interface), and therefore have to be configured with a subnet selection option contents. So far as I know, none of them expect 'CIDR notation' for this configuration value, but I suppose it is at least possible that they might be made to. But I'm more curious about what you intend to do with multiple subnets on one broadcast domain...which subnet should the relay provide the mask for? Are relays going to be required to know about all the subnets attached to a physical interface? If they're too dumb to have an IP address, but smart enough to be able to supply useful information in a relay agent option, are they going to need a way for routers to inform them what subnets they should advertise to the DHCP server? I don't like the vector to this line of reasoning. > To answer your question another way, I have a DHCP server which doesn't > need to be explicitly configured with the network topology, it derives > it. To make this work with relays need the relays to provide netmask > information. I don't think this will work without creating some sort of "subset of compatibility" (similar to the client-identifier and domain-name options). -- ISC Training! http://www.isc.org/training/ training@isc.org Washington DC area, April 16-20 2007. DNS & BIND, DDNS & DHCP. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Mark Stapp
- RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Andre Kostur
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Mark Stapp
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley
- RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Andre Kostur
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley
- Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Su… Simon Kelley