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

[Emmanuel Baccelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charlie,

I agree with you about trying to avoid the dichotomy
centralized/decentralized. If some people want to work on a DHCP-dependent
solution, let them try. If some other people want to work in parallel on a
DHCP-independent solution, why not let them do it too?

In my mind, these two solutions could be pretty complementary.

Emmanuel



On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Charles E. Perkins <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Emmanuel and all,
>
> Thanks for supporting the consideration
> of decentralized approach.  I'm pretty
> sure we could get at least one good
> working solution in time a lot faster
> than it took to agree that not everything
> is an Ethernet.
>
> However, it's important to avoid making
> a sharp dichotomy between "centralized"
> and "decentralized" approaches.  My big
> concern was that somehow the DHCP model
> was going to be considered the only viable
> choice because people (outsiders?) consider
> it to be the only known quantity.  There are
> other ways to have more centralized or less
> centralized procedures, with or without
> proxy assistance, perhaps hybridized
> approaches, and with improved availability
> via elections.
>
> Those are just a few of the options, and
> probably all of them are way better than
> trying to shoehorn DHCP where it does not
> seem to fit.  Flushing years of development
> and wisdom down the toilet just because
> they doesn't spell DHCP seems really wrong
> to me.
>
> Another point to keep in mind -- DHCP was
> designed and built from day one to be a
> _managed_ solution for autoconfiguration.
> It seems quite clear to me that most of the
> interesting development and inspiration for
> ad hoc networks has gone towards enabling
> networking in environments where no such
> tightly managed administration is possible.
> Thus, in my view, DHCP almost tautologically
> disqualifies itself from consideration
> without major structural redesign.  How is
> it, then, that DHCP keeps cropping up in
> the discussion?
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/1/2010 2:28 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    Charles Perkins
>>     > I'd be happy if it were possible for [autoconf] to
>>     > be allowed to consider the excellent body of work that
>>     > was seen already years ago -- the same body of work
>>     > that motivated me and others to create and spend a lot
>>     > of time over the last years and years.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also think this parallel approach could be appropriate too.
>>
>>
>>    Unfortunately, I can't offer to be one of those people.
>>    Although I should be able to contribute at the read and
>>    comment level, more than that is needed. I only didn't
>>    make the suggestion earlier as it needs people (with
>>    all due respect to Charlie, plural) to do the work.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd be happy to help out on the matter. So I guess we have a plural +
>> contributors ;)
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>
>