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

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:50:28AM +0000, Simon Kelley wrote:
> > I don't like the vector to this line of reasoning.
> 
> Would you care to explain why?

Sure.

> You should look at dnsmasq, which makes it work fine.

I know dnsmasq works, I meant for the relay case.

Adopting a change like this would create a 'subset of compatibility'
where dnsmasq is compatible with certain relays (and network designs
it turns out) but not others.

It "doesn't work" for any device that adds relay agent options and
either doesn't know about any prefixes on that network (such as a
switch), or doesn't know about /all/ of the prefixes on that network
(such as one of multiple routers, or one of multiple hosts on that
network).

If it were just a 'dnsmasq works with relay A but not B' thing, I
might be convinced if there were a really good reason (but I think
'not configuring the network mask' isn't good enough).  But 'network
architecture A but not B' is pushing it even further for me.

DHCP tries hard not to care how the network is put together.  It is
a bad vector to create DHCP protocol work that dictates a network
design, and intentionally introduces relay<->server compatibility
problems.

If you were curing cancer or something, that's a different game.

-- 
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