RE: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outsi de US ?)

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Jari Arkko wrote:
> ... So far in
> this thread I have heard people avoiding DHCP completely or using
> solely DHCP. Its clear that the two extremes would have a problem
> communicating... 

Absolute BS. There is no need for those to communicate. A host needs to be
able to get configuration from either mechanism. 

> The architectural principles of the Internet call for
> trying to find one solution, even if it is not 100% perfect in all
> cases.

No it doesn't. If anything it only requires that there be no more than one
for any particular set of financial constraints. 

> Also, given that we have existing protocols for these things, and
> implementations out there, its not clear that we want to find other
> ways of doing the same... particularly when we have real, unsolveed
> problems left. I'd rather spend cycles on those.
> 
> This does not mean we never do alternates - we did publish RA-based DNS
> discovcery, for instance. 

More BS. This is not on the standards track, so it will not get real
implementations that matter.

> And DHC WG will take a serious look at the
> customer requirements that Ralph mentioned. But it means we are going
> to ask hard questions about things like interop with existing hosts.

There is no hope for the existing environment because it requires an
incomplete set of both mechanisms to be deployed. That does not fit the
financial models that drive people toward their favored approach. It is not
the IETF's job to dictate a deployment model. The IETF needs to define the
tools to make either approach complete and deployable without reliance on
the other. 

Tony