Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 24, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> Would this satisfy both sides?

This is sort of like when a spendthrift congresscritter says "look, we  
want to take half of that national park for oil exploration, but  
you've objected that visitors to the park won't want to look at the  
oil derricks, so let's compromise: we'll take the *whole* park.   That  
satisfies our needs, and satisfies your objection as well.

There is simply no need for the kind of complexity you're proposing.    
The reason why DHCP is such a success is because it's a great place to  
put your client configuration control information.   It works.    
Network administrators keep it up to date.   Clients refresh their  
configurations periodically.   The problem you're afraid will happen  
is not going to happen.

Please stop trying to create additional complexity to deal with a  
problem that's not going to happen.   The whole point of DHCP is to  
PREVENT the kind of problem you're worried about.   You don't need to  
complexify it to accomplish your goals - it already accomplishes them!


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg