Re: [dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Tue, 05 February 2002 18:15 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11809 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:15:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA22791 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:15:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20609; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20577 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:42:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10389 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:42:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g15HcdX07617; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g15HfwM02816; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:41:58 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:41:58 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: "McCullagh, Matthew (Matt)" <mm63@lucent.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C75D175831F6D411893200508BB3A020012C7D9D@sp2002exch001u.es.lucent.com>
Message-Id: <A745D098-1A5F-11D6-ABCA-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> If I am reading this correctly, any DHCP server which states that it is
> compliant with RFC 3004 "should" be able to have multiple pools defined
> using the same private address range - distinguished by user-class.

Yikes!   This is a lesson in careful wording of drafts.   I am sure that 
that was not the intention of the authors!   It certainly wasn't how I read 
it during the review.

The user class option is just intended to be available to the DHCP server 
as a way to differentiate between clients based on user-supplied 
information.   How the server uses this is up to the implementor and the 
server administrator.   There is no requirement that servers support the 
policy you're talking about.

Having said that, I'd say it's pretty likely that the server you're using 
does support address allocation based on user class.   The ISC server does,
  for sure.   There's an example of how to configure it in the DHCP Handbook.
.. :')


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg