Re: [dhcwg] Review of Service-Discovery-Type options in DHCP

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 18 July 2002 01:29 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05671 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:29:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA15225 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14822; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14795 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:29:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05606 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dechen.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.74.182]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.6/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g6I1THd10062; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:29:17 GMT
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.12.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g6I1TUXU002522; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:29:30 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:29:29 +0900
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of Service-Discovery-Type options in DHCP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
Cc: DHCP discussion list <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200207171201.g6HC1KT00380@scv2.apple.com>
Message-Id: <CE0A4040-99ED-11D6-8431-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stuart, let's be careful here.   My motivation for being involved in DHCPv6 
is that I think people will want it.   IPv6 provides a completely 
functional alternative to DHCPv6, so the _only_ reason that DHCPv6 will 
ever be deployed is if people want it.   The idea that you want fewer 
network servers strikes me as a red herring - if you have the right 
administrative interface, it doesn't *matter* how many ports you are 
listening on, or what format the packets have.   The impact on the end user 
is the same - hopefully nil, or nearly nil.

I can tell you quite frankly that although I am quite skeptical that DHCP 
is going to go away with IPv6, I would be very happy to get out of the DHCP 
business and hack on DNS or something else.   And I think that whichever 
way the market goes, my company is going to do fine, so I'm not worried 
about it from that perspective.

So let's not make this a discussion about which way is better.  Let's let 
the market determine that.   Let's instead figure out how we can win 
whichever way the market goes.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg