[dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.

"McCullagh, Matthew (Matt)" <mm63@lucent.com> Tue, 05 February 2002 17:52 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10808 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:52:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA21221 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:52:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17163; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:06:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17134 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:06:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail1.lucent.com [192.11.226.161]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08601 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sp0002exch001p.wins.lucent.com (h135-88-24-89.lucent.com [135.88.24.89]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g15H5xZ06979 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:05:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sp0002exch001p.es.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <CR49HVDL>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:05:57 +0100
Message-ID: <C75D175831F6D411893200508BB3A020012C7D9D@sp2002exch001u.es.lucent.com>
From: "McCullagh, Matthew (Matt)" <mm63@lucent.com>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:05:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Hi all. 

RFC 3004 states that "Based on this class, a DHCP server selects the
appropriate address pool to assign an address to the client and the
appropriate configuration parameters."
If I am reading this correctly, any DHCP server which states that it is
compliant with RFC 3004 "should" be able to have multiple pools defined
using the same private address range - distinguished by user-class.

I'll explain a bit more : 
1. Company X sells Internet Services to companies A, B, C, D & E. 
2. All of these companies have their own private ip@ ranges and refuse to
change them.
3. Companies A, C & E all have their networks setup as 192.168.1.x 

Am I right in assuming that theoretically I could setup a user-class for
each company and then define the range of ip@s for each - something like
this: 

dynamic-dhcp range 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.50 class "CompanyA" { 
	option domain-name "CompanyA.com" ; 
	option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0; 
	option dhcp-lease-time 600 
	}
dynamic-dhcp range 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.50 class "CompanyC" { 
	option domain-name "CompanyC.com"; 
	option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0; 
	option dhcp-lease-time 600 
	}
dynamic-dhcp range 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.50 class "CompanyE" { 
	option domain-name "CompanyE.com"; 
	option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0; 
	option dhcp-lease-time 600 
	}

Theoretically each net is distinguished by the user-class so as long as the
dhcp clients can send and understand user-class I should have no problem ? 

Any help at all is more than welcome ! 

Many thanks in advance and 

Best Regards,

Matt


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