[dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

> The most common use of static routes I know is to tell a host with a 
> global address and a default gateway that Net 10/8 is local and reachable 
> via a different route.

But you can't specify that with the static routes option!   This is
why we need the CSR option - because you can't specify a CIDR route
such as the one you just mentioned using the existing static routes
option.

> Clients can request all three options, but only use "routers" and "static 
> routes" when there's no "classless static routes" data in the packet.

The client probably won't *get* all three options!  The server will
likely leave one out due to lack of space, and there is no reason to
believe that the one it will drop will be the static routes option.

We could make it the server's responsibility to notice that both
options are requested and exclude one, but this is fairly expensive,
and servers have to handle the aggregate workload rather than the
individual workload, which is why I didn't solve the problem that way.

>     * Can anyone give any technical reason why it is          *
>     * necessary for *this* document to prohibit clients       *
>     * from requesting DHCP option number 6 (static routes)?   *

Because both options are likely not to fit in a packet.

			       _MelloN_

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