Subject: RE: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:40:57 -0400

I have no problem if we were to deprecate option 33.

However, there will likely always be clients that continue to support just
it (at least for a while). And, while those clients exist and if SOME
routing information must be given to them (other than default routes), then
all you may have is Option 33.

Also, when new clients that support CSR are released, servers may not yet be
configured with this new option data and thus these clients may need to
continue to use option 33 for "limited" routing information.

So co-existance is necessary.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:44 PM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Cc: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt

> > If that's not the goal, maybe just deprecating 33 is the best thing
> > to do. Since the predominate client(s) don't support 33 that's no
> > loss to most of the end-users.
> 
> This is precisely the point, and this is what the proposed language
> effectively does.

It should state it explicitly if the justification can withstand debate.
If it cannot, then both of them should continue to be supported. At the
very least, support for both would at least allow admins with complex
networks and 33-capable clients to transition from one to the other.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                      http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols        http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:59:39 -0700

> all you may have is Option 33.

Right.  What I'm suggesting is that we obsolete option 33 *for clients
that support CSR*.  Servers should still be capable of supporting it,
and clients that do not support CSR can continue to use it.  Sites
that have a mix of CSR-capable and non-CSR-capable clients and that
need to send custom routing tables to DHCP clients will have to
configure both the SR option and the CSR option into CSR-capable
servers.

> continue to use option 33 for "limited" routing information.

The ISC DHCP server and the Microsoft DHCP server are both capable of
being configured to send raw hex data for an option, and I suspect
other servers are as well.   So the problem we are potentially causing
a site that is using SR and suddenly gets some CSR-capable clients is
_very_ small.   Adding complexity to the draft to eliminate this
potential problem strikes me as a very bad idea.

			       _MelloN_