Subject: RE: [dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.

From: "McCullagh, Matthew (Matt)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:12:27 +0100

Hi Ted, 

I guess I was reading into it what I wanted/needed to read into it !
I'll certainly look into the ISC option - any ideas how scalable it is. 

Am checking around to see if we have a copy of your book here ! 

Many thanks for quick response ! 

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: martes, 05 de febrero de 2002 18:42
To: McCullagh, Matthew (Matt)
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3004 - User class question.

> If I am reading this correctly, any DHCP server which states that it is
> compliant with RFC 3004 "should" be able to have multiple pools defined
> using the same private address range - distinguished by user-class.

Yikes!   This is a lesson in careful wording of drafts.   I am sure that 
that was not the intention of the authors!   It certainly wasn't how I read 
it during the review.

The user class option is just intended to be available to the DHCP server 
as a way to differentiate between clients based on user-supplied 
information.   How the server uses this is up to the implementor and the 
server administrator.   There is no requirement that servers support the 
policy you're talking about.

Having said that, I'd say it's pretty likely that the server you're using 
does support address allocation based on user class.   The ISC server does,
  for sure.   There's an example of how to configure it in the DHCP
Handbook.
.. :')

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg