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

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 10 October 2002 15:40 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08460 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9AFgcH18108 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:38 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9AFgcv18105 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:42:38 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08451 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9AFeOv17951; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:40:25 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9AFdRv17847 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:39:27 -0400
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08277 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (ch2-dhcp150-107.cisco.com [161.44.150.107]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02061 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021010113510.03961ed8@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:39:21 -0400
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] <draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet-selection-03.txt> - Classfull ?
In-Reply-To: <3E27E3C3-DC64-11D6-A9B4-00039367340A@nominum.com>
References: <F9211EC7A7FED4119FD9005004A6C8700AAD9102@eamrcnt723.exu.ericsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>

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...

- 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