Subject: [dhcwg] draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-01.txt

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:49:13 -0600

You might want to consider using the subnet mask compression mechanism  
used in RFC3442.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:00:20 -0500

Yeah, even just sending the subnet mask length instead of the mask value
itself would save 3 octets/entry. The RFC 3442 compression would be a
further improvement (though it does make things just a bit more complex
to encode/decode the data).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:49 AM
To: [email-masked] WG
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-01.txt

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:14:22 -0600

> to encode/decode the data).

True, but since we've already implemented that (haven't we?) it's  
actually probably less work to use the same scheme rather than the  
superficially simpler scheme of specifying the mask width.