Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol

[Jim Gettys <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 06/26/2013 11:22 AM, David R Oran wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>  On 06/26/2013 10:42 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That explicit statement went away in RFC 3315, though the terminology
>>>>>> section makes it very clear that a Host is not a Router.
>>>>>>
>>>>> DHCPv6 PD is explicitly for configuring routers, so I think this
>>>>> assertion is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> This was linked back to the assertion that "the IETF has a
>>>> configuration protocol, it is DHCP" or some such. I was simply trying to
>>>> point out what "the IETF" has on record in this regard.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, we often use protocols beyond their original intent. RFC
>>>> 5218 calls this "Wild Success", with plenty of examples.
>>>>
>>>> DHCPv6 PD has been referred to by one of its co-authors as "a Fax
>>>> replacement", so that the user doesn't have to type in his prefix sent to
>>>> him in printed form from his ISP. I think that analogy was given to sway
>>>> anyone away from trying to rely on it for more than a very long-lived,
>>>> essentially static, value from an ISP.
>>>>
>>>>  Isn't a Somebody's-Law that states that "every successful protocol
>>> will become a
>>> transport protocol for something else”?Yup. I claim
>>>
>>>  Yup - I claim to have coined that one.
>>
>>
> Heh -- I definitely heard it from you first :)
>
>
>
And it's soooo true, though I managed to discourage using X protocol as an
RPC framework, back in the day.

Unfortunately, no success with HTTP :-(.
                               - Jim