Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

> I have to disagree with you on the flexibility issue.   Hundreds of 
> thousands, probably millions, of these "headless" EMTA devices will 
> deployed to the field in the next few years.  A conservative approach 
> dictates that it should be possible to remotely configure any device 
> parameter that might reasonably be expected to require configuration.   We 
> feel the protocol port numbers fall into this category.

I wouldn't use the term "conservative" to describe this - "frivilous
additional complexity for no real benefits" is closer to the words I would use.
 Following this line of argument one could also argue that there
might be a need to run UDP on a protocol number different than the standard
17, etc.

IMHO the criteria should be that the additional flexibility indeed fills
a real need; not that it might be useful.

If this is so critical, why didn't e.g. 3GPP see the need for this when
thinking about deploying hundereds of millions of IP capable mobile phones?

And what about the hundered million or so computers already using IP?
AFAIK there is no mechanism to override the port number used for DNS
even using manual configuration on each box. (E.g. configurable in resolv.conf)

    Erik

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