On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Richard Pruss wrote: > David your fundamental disagreement was on if DHCP should configure the > network element as well as the > host. I would say this was not my fundamental disagreement. I did bring up several points of which you could say you are summarizing your opinion of one, but for that point I would have chosen different words. The fundamental technical problem lies in making requests of clients that are in INIT state, and the new requirements to clients this implies. I believe this fundamentally breaks the DHCPv4 client/server model beyond which we can reasonably maintain over time. > that. The simple fact is that > although it was not part of DHCP at the outset; DHCP does configure relays > in many enterprise and service > provider networks today. I am fully aware of this, but it also /doesn't/. Not everywhere. The point is that solving client access control by using a mechanism that only fulfills the role in a subset of environments is "throwing spaghetti at the wall" by solving one problem several times in different places. This is great fun of course, unless you are the wall. Or the Janitor. -- 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:
pgpOKLxhmum78.pgp
Description: PGP signature