On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break > the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their > presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably that would not happen in a well-tended network. In any case, anywhere this is actually of vital importance, a routing protocol would be in use. Using the DHCP protocol to deliver information - about anything really - is what it's *for*. That said, making clients depend utterly on the presence of a working DHCP server for basic connectivity seems like a backward step. Of course, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "basic" connectivity. > Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult. Whoa! Tell you what, how about if I break it, and you get to choose which piece you keep? [Bash, bash, thud. Ugh. Hm. It's tougher than it looks!] :-) Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
