Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-00.txt

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:00:14 -0500

Stuart:

I fully agree with you. We MUST spell out the expected behavoir. I have
no problem in these routes being ignored if that is the stated behavoir.
I assume you mean that the individual route is ignored, not the entire
list of routes in the option? We should be clear about this as well.

Isn't Ralph collecting ideas for revising 2131/2132? This should be
added to the list.

- Bernie Volz

----

>>> 6. Should there be something said about a destination that has HOST bits
>>> set when applying the subnet mask? Should a DHCP client IGNORE that
>>> entry or treat the packet in error or should it install the "cleaned"
>>> route (by clearing the host bits).
>>
>>Again, I think the best thing to do here would be to say that the
>>server administrator SHOULD NOT do this, and leave the behaviour
>>resulting from a violation of this SHOULD NOT unspecified.
>
>I would like wording that says clients MUST silently ignore any static 
>routes that are offered with non-zero bits in the host part.
>
>If you leave the behaviour unspecified, and then we find later that 
>static routes with non-zero host bits produce some particular kind of 
>weird behaviour on Windows machines, and weird network administrators 
>start relying on that weird behaviour, then the Mac OS DHCP client gets 
>slammed in the press for not being "compatible" with the "industry 
>standard".
>
>Since I plan to implement this option, and since I plan to silently 
>ignore any static routes with non-zero host bits, it would make my life 
>easier if the document stated explicitly that this is the right thing to 
>do (or if not, tell me what I should do with them).
>
>Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>