IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet MaskSub-optiondie

"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 19 March 2007 08:43 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 1HTDSQ-0003IB-8K; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTDSP-0003I6-Rn for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:09 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTDSN-0001sN-H9 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:09 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2007 04:43:08 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2J8h713024584; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:07 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2J8h7Gd017264; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:43:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:06 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet MaskSub-optiondie
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:43:05 -0400
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB21038C8C2E@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9A865A6C-3682-4880-97CD-9BC5CBD0993A@nominum.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet MaskSub-optiondie
Thread-Index: AcdqASanFNamUO7eTfOmeYrjvffLegAALfag
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2007 08:43:06.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D855BB0:01C76A02]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2282; t=1174293787; x=1175157787; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bernie=20Volz=20\(volz\)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20Question=3A=20in=20RFC3046=20why=20did=20Ag ent=20Subnet=20MaskSub-optiondie |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Ted=20Lemon=22=20<Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, =0A=20=20=20=20=20=20= 20=20=22Ralph=20Droms=20\(rdroms\)=22=20<rdroms@cisco.com>; bh=hJZNWgrSNC4lg5d+xCyecN2NBO/WCgE0y8mpSpBVlgI=; b=yzawu9sAI5dLmIki2mVDbDTeFwdlQjpquzQymYjvM0erHjtCcBkUMyyRF6cYNfWDhuoMov96 XQAO8PVoF262fO80heQUby+VId9Gqrbju1Vv8kB2tvUrq+SyijBTRM8H;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: DHC WG <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

We only have one request for this for "automatic configuration" ... And
that server already needs some configuration (such as the addresses
available for DHCPv4), so it seems like extending that server's
configuration to allow the subnet mask (length) to be specified isn't a
severe handicap.

While there may not be any harm in the Relay Agent providing this
information, it would be years before most relays would even have the
support for this so if that server is going to be used in these
environments, its going to need a workaround until such time as this
option has gone through DHC WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and is
available in relay agents.

Our assumption has always been that you need to configure the DHCP
server with this information (and DHCPv6 has no similar options).

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:31 AM
To: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet
MaskSub-optiondie

On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Expanding on Ted's theme a little - if we're going to consider  
> extensions to
> DHCP that can automate the process of configuring the DHCP server,  
> we ought
> to take a little time to consider other, similar extensions and  
> define them
> all at once rather than one at a time...

Best is the enemy of good enough, so I don't think we should delay  
forever if there is some demand for this functionality.   This is  
certainly something that would be optional to implement, so I don't  
think it's a problem to define a standard for it.   I mentioned the  
more detailed option style because it's an obvious enhancement, but  
this really isn't a very complicated use case - I don't think we're  
going to come up with anything revolutionary here if we wait.

So my personal feeling is that using the CSR format is sufficient,  
unless someone has a better idea, and that if there is demand for  
this we should do it.   To me the big question is whether there's  
demand for it.



_______________________________________________
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

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status