Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Easy to invent the automatic mechanism:
Only need an address? Use ND.
Need more? use ND for getting address, find central server, get more.

Teco.


Op 2 jul 2010, om 20:59 heeft Mark Townsley het volgende geschreven:

> 
> My kneejerk reaction to this is that walking in with the goal of having
> more than one way to autoconfigure a manet is a bad idea.
> 
> If we end up with two ways to autoconfigure, then we will have to invent
> an automatic mechanism on top to choose which autoconfiguration
> mechanism to use.  That doesn't help anyone. In absence of knowledgeable
> human configuration, hard choices that narrow functional options
> typically far outweigh the potential benefits of one option vs. the
> other. So, even if you can prove that A is better than B, B is still
> better than A+B.
> 
> Let's strive for making a choice, at least within the MANET domain.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> 
> On 7/2/10 3:21 PM, Holtzer, A.C.G. (Arjen) wrote:
>> Hello autoconfers,
>> 
>> I support this "two-case"-approach, Christopher mentions: so
>> standardizing one centralized and one decentralized solution (or one
>> stateful and one stateless solution, just like in the current IPv6
>> standards). I agree that the solution should make use of existing
>> protocols as much as possible (e.g. DHCP, ND, ...), but my choice would
>> be not to state in the charter that DHCP must be used in all solutions
>> coming out of the WG.
>> 
>> draft-bernardos-manet-autoconf-survey-05 shows there are already many
>> proposals existing, making it a good starting point for going into
>> solution space. Actually even more than just a starting point since many
>> of the proposals have already been around for a while. So I support this
>> doc.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Arjen
>> 
>>> 
>>> If Charlie can find a few like-minded people to work on that, 
>>> why not add this as a parallel activity? The rationale of why 
>>> two cases should be straightforward to make, they are almost 
>>> chalk and cheese in e.g. centralised versus non-centralised. 
>>> This is actually added safety to the group producing 
>>> something, as if one succeeds and the other fails, that's still good.
>>> 
>>> 
>> This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf