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

On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 <mark@townsley.net> 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.
DaveO.

> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet