On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:23:29AM -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> OK. Then, can you (or someone who was involved in the earlier
> discussions) summarize what other issues might remain?
I think you mean me.
Thomas had a complaint about the use of the word 'reliable',
which I understand to have been cleared up in the edits that
brought SRSN (since that bit was edited to reference the new
draft).
I think it was only us two who said something, so that just
leaves me.
The vast exchange between Bernie and myself (throughout the
entire history of same) can be summarized I hope without
offense:
1) "Turning DHCPv6 into a kind of RIP-like thing" (my critique)
is possibly not the most robust network design modern men can
invent (alternatives given).
a) But it may be the easiest to implement for CMTS people,
especially since CMTS already have to implement DHCPv6
relays.
b) And isn't specified in this option anyway. The entire
question of what you do with the contents of this option
are left to implementors. It might just program an ACL
for a formal routing protocol (although at least this
purpose is one that does not strictly require the SRSN).
2) It falls down in multiple-relay (failsafe, not chained) scenarios.
a) But there are no multiple-relay scenarios for CMTS,
for which this is being designed. Such network designs
have 'cold spares' not 'running peers' for fault tolerance.
b) And our volunteer is, understandably, unwilling to design
for multiple-relays.
So there are arguments either way.
For the record, I am abstaining from this WGLC, so nothing I just
said or am about to say should be taken in support or objection, I
just wanted to sum up for Fred.
Overall, I'm a critic of the madness rather than the method. The
view these discussions have afforded me into this sort of madness
makes me rather glad I never worked for a Cable ISP.
I can't imagine actually craving the situation where I ask a "router"
to perform its duty without using a formal routing protocol, because
the alternative is too horrid to imagine. In networks I have worked
at, we've always had the opposite problem: lack of adequate routing
protocol support being the horror we wished to escape [1].
But there you have it, and I accept it. That's where these CMTS
operators are.
I cannot speak in support, for then I am helping lock the cage they
are trapped in, even if they say they like the decor. I cannot
speak in objection, for then I am holding from them a coping
mechanism.
[1] On request, I can supply my copy of "OSPF", a song set to the
tune of "YMCA" by _The Village People_. It was writ, and oft
sung over beer, by a group of people who had the misfortune of
working with me for a company with ~300 Ascends (and we RMA'd
30 a month).
There is, of course, a much longer (but equally irrelevant)
backstory behind its creation.
--
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgp6zOFdHUwp9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg