Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-06.txt

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 20 November 2007 15:27 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 1IuV0a-0006ln-8z; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:28 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuV0Z-0006k3-6m for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:27 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuV0U-0005Fh-Hl for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:27 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2007 10:27:22 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAKFRMfx001250; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:22 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAKFRHVx023596; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:27:22 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:09 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([10.86.240.146]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4742EECD.9030503@gmail.com>
References: <E1It4mU-0002rJ-4G@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <4742EECD.9030503@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <233398A2-AF01-4444-9293-E076482B8184@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-06.txt
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:17 -0500
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2007 15:27:08.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[D04FBE20:01C82B89]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15556.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--40.844200-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4858; t=1195572442; x=1196436442; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20<rdroms@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dhcwg]=20I-D=20ACTION=3Adraft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc- 06.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20Alexandru=20Petrescu=20<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>; bh=JD2sLu5Uv13wtnme4Q/3JikSkI10/1p/WZNt3ssfntk=; b=N2p02vcy+wy+3g+Q3qdd71nVOCnlIh7l9nD0ovwvyCyZORzT0dszgVXontkbIfD/UESe/N7S 9NpArOvvxqSsByJ98vnNB6Ez6rzSPop/XYRC/+EG14V7luqhf1YO6+wS;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4
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

Quick top-level response. This draft describes Cisco's current use of  
option code 220, and follows the process outlined in RFC 3942 to  
document the use of option codes the were previously identified as  
"site-specific options" in RFC 2132.  According to the RFC 3942  
process, the document will be published as "Informational"; because  
it documents current use rather than future deployment, there likely  
won't be changes to the syntax or semantics of the option at this point.

- Ralph

On Nov 20, 2007, at Nov 20, 2007,9:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Hi, I've read this draft and I have some comments.  I may have  
> missed prior discussion around it, sorry if I sound uninformed on  
> this.
>
> Was there a Last Call for this draft?  What are the reasons behind  
> its intended status being Informational? Was there any mention  
> about prototyping or intent of it or of an Ethereal/WireShark  
> packet analyzer dissector?
>
> Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
>> directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host  
>> Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
>> Title		: Subnet Allocation Option Author(s)	: R. Johnson, et al.  
>> Filename	: draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-06.txt Pages		: 32 Date		:  
>> 2007-11-16  This document defines a new DHCP option which is  
>> passed between the DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request  
>> dynamic allocation of a subnet, give specifications of subnet(s)  
>> allocated, and report usage statistics.  This memo documents the  
>> current usage of the option in agreement with RFC-3942[4], which  
>> declares that any pre-existing usages of option numbers in the  
>> range 128 - 223 should be documented and the working group will  
>> try to officially assign those numbers to those options.
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet- 
>> drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-06.txt
>
> Comments on this draft:
>
>> 3.1.  Subnet-Request Suboption format
> >
>>    0                   1                   2                   3
>>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
>>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>    |       1       |     Len       |     Flags |i|h|    Prefix     |
>>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Since the Prefix field will only encode a maximum of 32 values (the  
> prefix length of an IPv4 address, or the subnet mask) 5 bits would  
> suffice (and not 8 as above).  This would allow Flags field to  
> expand more flags in the future.  Thoughts?
>
> Nit:
>>  The DHCP Server SHOULD allocate a subnet with prefix size less  
>> than or equal to the size P specified in the request.  In other  
>> words, a subnet at least the size requested and possibly bigger.
>                                          ^^
> I think you meant 'possibly smaller' (if we characterize the size  
> parameter as the number of addresses within it then a bigger subnet  
> accommodates more hosts).
>
>>    The actual method of allocating subnets on the DHCP Server, as  
>> well
>>    as the configuration of what networks may be subnetted and how, is
>>    left up to the implementation.
>
> I think this is reasonable.
>
> However, I see more simple issues around it that don't necessarily  
> need to be left to implementations and moreover have a direct  
> relationship to DHCP.
>
> -Could we have a picture somewhere at the beginning of the document
>  describing an example with topology how you see this prototyped?  Is
>  that like Client--Server or more like Client--Relay--Server?
> -If the latter then we may have some new restrictions to specify: the
>  Server should allocate a subnet _within_ the subnet on which the  
> Relay
>  already allocates addresses for Clients.  This has a strong impact on
>  implementations' ways to specify their configuration files.
> -and also about routing: if working through a Relay then the routing
>  must be updated for the subnet allocation to work.  Maybe how to  
> update
>  it it's left to other specs, but the routing must be updated  
> (Server's
>  routing table must point to Client's address for the subnet it
>  allocated).  This is something that could be mentioned I hinkl.
>
> Alex
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email  
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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