[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dhcwg] Re: Rethinking autoconfig, was Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:52:49 -0400
James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> > On 20-aug-2007, at 15:02, James Carlson wrote:
> > > To me, that sounds like high cost with essentially no benefit. What
> > > am I missing?
<snip>
> This means that the DHCP server is perfect in its operation and
> omniscient about all hosts that may be attached to the network, even
> the statically-configured ones.
>
> I've yet to meet one that is this good.
>
Agree, and then you also get people like me who occasionally, in a
desperate situation, do a dirty, dirty thing like steal one of the DHCP
server's dynamic addresses for a static assignment, and rely on DAD by
both the DHCP and other hosts to avoid conflicts, while I deal with
the desperate situation.
I don't like doing that sort of thing, but I like that both the DHCP
server and hosts are robust enough to handle it gracefully when I do. A
few extra packets seems to me to be a relatively small price to pay for
robustness and resilience.
Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg