IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Andre Kostur" <akostur@incognito.com> Wed, 07 March 2007 09:05 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 1HOs56-0007d2-0c; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:05:08 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOj0t-0005fo-Vh for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:24:12 -0500
Received: from h216-18-16-189.gtcust.grouptelecom.net ([216.18.16.189] helo=zeus.incognito.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOgnC-0006GQ-Uo for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:02:59 -0500
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:05:47 -0800
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Message-ID: <403B5316AD7A254C9024875BAE481D4E6C314F@zeus.incognito.com>
In-Reply-To: <45EDD246.20605@thekelleys.org.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-optiondie
Thread-index: AcdgMTaBHoEaoUN0SI6YyC2b2Mo7VAAAcUnw
References: <45EDD246.20605@thekelleys.org.uk>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc:
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

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...

> -----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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email