RE: FW: Question regarding address specs for IPv4-only protocol MIBs

["Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 13:21
>
>
> The point is that you can have IPv4 addresses that are only used on a
> given link and that there might be boxes that connect multiple such
> links with IPv4 addresses that are "link local". On such a box, the
> uniqueness property of the IPv4 address is lost and you need
> additional information to resolve conflicts.
>
...a DHCPv4 server can, as Rich pointed out, allocate addresses from any of
the non-globally routable IPv4 address ranges, including 10.x.x.x and
others.

If a network administrator interconnects two subnetworks, each presumably
served IPv4 addresses from the same address range (for example,
192.168.244.x) the administrator must take some additional precautions to
prevent conflicts between the two servers.  This problem occurred before VPN
technology existed and was not made better or worse by the introduction of
VPNs.

Also, note that the two draft options that Rich mentions concern the option
space, not addresses allocated by the DHCPv4 server.

Introducing a zone index per RFC 3291 would require a fundamental change in
the message and option formats of DHCPv4, and possibly require a change in
the protocol message exchange as well, forcing a major revision of DHCPv4,
something that I'm certain the DHC Working Group would not wish to undertake
at this point.

--Barr Hibbs