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