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

From: Matthew Williamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:16:06 -0700

Hello,

I was wondering why there isn't a provision for metrics in
draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt, or if anyone's discussed adding them?

thanks,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:51 AM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Public-key auth draft

A copy of the (now expired) draft describing
public-key authentication for DHCP is
available at

http://playground.sun.com/~vgupta/docs.html

I'll resubmit this draft after consulting
with the WG chair.

thanks,

vipul

---

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:42:54 -0400

Interesting idea but the question is what metrics did you want? Just a hop
count type metric (such as used by Windows ROUTE ADD?).

Ted ... what about considering this. One byte would be sufficient (per
route). It does make the option data longer and also means that the DHCP
Server would have to have this (static) information configured for the
option.

I'm neutral on this as I believe these routes are static and there is likely
to be one route per 'destination'. And, active routing protocols are of more
use to convey this type of information (such as RIP listeners). But, it is
just as easy to always specify a value of 1 for these.

If we're really keen on conserving bits in this option (and want to add
this), one idea might be to use some of the subnet length bits for this.
Since the subnet length requires 5 bits (0..31), we could use the remaining
3 bits to specify the metric. This would give a metric from 0 to 7 (or 1 to
8). This should be sufficient for most cases. This encoding would make it
painful for people entering the data to the servers, but does compress the
data. I'm not really in favor of this approach, but suggest it for those
that feel this is important to add and want to keep the length of the option
down.

On the plus side, those that don't care about the metric simply specify the
subnet mask and a 0 metric is mapped to 1 when the route is added.

Note: As a side issue [on the issue of using a router address of 0.0.0.0 to
mean "link-local" address], we could use a bit in the subnet length field to
indicate whether the router address is present or not. If not present, this
would mean it is on the interface being configured and hence you'd avoid
having to send the router address (as 0.0.0.0). Of course, this would not be
good if we encoded the metric in these bits since two bits for a metric is
likely not enough.

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Williamson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:16 PM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Question: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt

Hello,

thanks,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:51 AM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Public-key auth draft

thanks,

vipul

---

From: Matthew Williamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:08:27 -0700

<my apologize for the lag time in responding>

Your assumption is correct on the metric usage we're looking for.

There are three reasons I believe this is a good idea:

1)  Watching some posts as to the use of this, I saw a couple of needs
somewhere in the order of "For networks that are designed in such a way that
multiple routers are used to eventually go to the same place from one
subnet...

2)  If it sits in the router table, it would probably make sense to place it
in here as well.

3)  An Admin may want to throw it in there for multiple routers used in a
failover scenerio.

Thanks,

m@

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:43 AM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Cc: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: RE: Question: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Williamson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:16 PM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Question: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-02.txt

Hello,

thanks,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:51 AM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Public-key auth draft

thanks,

vipul