Subject: Re: Help! Static route option

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:47:24 -0400

>> I'm all for deprecating it when the route-with-mask option is available.
>> Even so, it will take a while before all the DHCP servers support it, so it
>> may still be reasonable to clarify its use until a better option is
>> available.
>
>Clarifying it doesn't make sense when talking about existing
>implementations - they are already doing whatever they're going to do,
>which normally will be to not request the option and to ignore it if
>it's received.   We don't _want_ future implementations, so
>clarification doesn't help there either.
>
>The current option _doesn't work_, so there is simply no point in
>anybody ever implementing it, clarification or no.   I will try to
>have a draft out today for a classless static routes option, and then
>we can stop arguing about this.
>
>			       _MelloN_
>

While I agree that this option should be depreciated (and am all for a
new option with the mask), IF there are clients that use it, it would be
nice to hear from these client implementors to understand how they are
currently interpreting it such that if someone needed to use it, they
could.

If most clients ignore it, that would be useful to know as well (since
it makes depreciating it easier).

So, if any DHCP Client implementors care to comment on how they process
this option (or if they don't), please send to the list.

- Bernie Volz
  Process Software

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:57:14 -0500

> this option (or if they don't), please send to the list.

I actually implemented it, using standard classful routing.   I
implemented no cleverness at all - it just does exactly what you'd
expect in a classful routing environment.   :')   I'm pretty sure
Win95 ignores this option, but I'd be interested in hearing the
official word from Microsoft.

			       _MelloN_