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

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.Lemonnominum.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
dhcwgietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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

> 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...
> 

I proposed in the draft which went to Ted an extension to
the CSR format
to include the broadcast address, for free in common cases.
That would
probably count as a "similar extension".

Another useful one might be a "default option
override" which allows the
relay to tell the server "in the absence of explicit
configuration, use
value Y for option X" An obvious use for that would be
default gateway -
a relay may be in a much better position to create a good
default for
that then a  remote server. It should probably be general,
and allow the
default for any option to be set.

Cheers,

Simon.





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