Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk> Wed, 07 March 2007 09:07 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 1HOs79-0002ep-2V; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:07:15 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOizu-0005ag-4K for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:23:10 -0500
Received: from cpc2-cmbg4-0-0-cust458.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([81.98.241.203] helo=thekelleys.org.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOhLb-0004tj-4c for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:37:28 -0500
Received: from vaio.thekelleys.org.uk ([192.168.1.179]) by thekelleys.org.uk with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HOhJR-0002ZI-00; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:35:13 +0000
Message-ID: <45EDDE8C.1090704@thekelleys.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:35:08 +0000
From: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.7.13-0.2ubuntu1
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
References: <45EDD246.20605@thekelleys.org.uk> <403B5316AD7A254C9024875BAE481D4E6C314F@zeus.incognito.com>
In-Reply-To: <403B5316AD7A254C9024875BAE481D4E6C314F@zeus.incognito.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Andre Kostur wrote: > Turning the question around, why do you feel that it is necessary? > Presumably the DHCP server already knows the network topology and thus > knows what the subnet mask is on whatever network the client is > requesting from... > I maintain dnsmasq <http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html> which (despite its name) is, amongst other things, an easy to configure DHCP server. For local networks, the only _required_ configuration is one or more ranges of addresses to allocate from: everything else is automagically inferred from the network configuration of the machine. For networks where the host running dnsmasq doesn't have a interface (ie where a relay agent is in use), this breaks down because the netmask is not available and it has to be manually configured. 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. 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. Cheers, Simon. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Simon Kelley [mailto:simon@thekelleys.org.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:43 PM >>To: dhcwg@ietf.org >>Subject: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet >>Mask Sub-optiondie >> >>What was the reasoning behind removing the Agent Subnet mask >>option during the gestation of RFC3046? It was there in >> >>draft-ietf-dhc-agent-options-08 >> >>and gone in >> >>draft-ietf-dhc-agent-options-09 >> >>I ask because I have an application where it would be very useful. > > > _______________________________________________ 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