On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:11 +1100 Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> 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. > IPv6 Subnets/VLANs are pretty cheap, maybe if people are having this issue, that's a sign they need to divide their hosts into more subnets/VLANs. More broadly, it seems the argument is where to put networking operational policy - in the network (via e.g. engineered topology), or on the hosts. I think there is value in putting it in the network, because it avoids having to change host located policy when the network policy changes. > 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 >
