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

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